Impact of Human Activities on Carbon Dioxide (CO<Subscript>2</Subscript>) Emissions: A Statistical Analysis

Summary The balance of evidence suggests a perceptible human influence on global ecosystems. Human activities are affecting the global ecosystem, some directly and some indirectly. If researchers could clarify the extent to which specific human activities affect global ecosystems, they would be in a much better position to suggest strategies for mitigating against the worst disturbances. Sophisticated statistical analysis can help in interpreting the influence of specific human activities on global ecosystems more carefully. This study aims at identifying significant or influential human activities (i.e. factors) on CO₂ emissions using statistical analyses. The study was conducted for two cases: (i) developed countries and (ii) developing countries. In developed countries, this study identified three influential human activities for CO₂ emissions: (i) combustion of fossil fuels, (ii) population pressure on natural and terrestrial ecosystems, and (iii) land use change. In developing countries, the significant human activities causing an upsurge of CO₂ emissions are: (i) combustion of fossil fuels, (ii) terrestrial ecosystem strength and (iii) land use change. Among these factors, combustion of fossil fuels is the most influential human activity for CO₂ emissions both in developed and developing countries. Regression analysis based on the factor scores indicated that combustion of fossil fuels has significant positive influence on CO₂ emissions in both developed and developing countries. Terrestrial ecosystem strength has a significant negative influence on CO₂ emissions. Land use change and CO₂ emissions are positively related, although regression analysis showed that the influence of land use change on CO₂ emissions was still insignificant. It is anticipated, from the findings of this study, that CO₂ emissions can be reduced by reducing fossil-fuel consumption and switching to alternative energy sources, preserving exiting forests, planting trees on abandoned and degraded forest lands, or by planting trees by social/agroforestry on agricultural lands.     

Ethological farm programs and the “market” for animal welfare

Ethological farm programs as they exist in Switzerland are compared with environmental farm programs in respect of demand and supply. Because animal welfare is not a public good but rather a relation that causes psychological externalities, the demand for animal welfare has a different standing in economic theory than the demand for a clean environment. The supply of animal welfare by farmers, however, largely follows the patterns known from the delivery of environmental goods. Farm size, age and education, and also family size and capital intensity are influencing variables. The paper concludes that the design of ethological farm programs should be based on broad public discussions as described by deliberation theorists rather than willingness-to-pay studies.     

The Ethics of Constrained Choice: How the Industrialization of Agriculture Impacts Farming and Farmer Behavior

The industrialization of agriculture not only alters the ways in which agricultural production occurs, but it also impacts the decisions farmers make in important ways. First, constraints created by the economic environment of farming limit what options a farmer has available to him. Second, because of the industrialization of agriculture and the resulting economic pressures it creates for farmers, the fact that decisions are constrained creates new ethical challenges for farmers. Having fewer options when faced with severe economic pressures is a very different situation for farmers than having many options available. We discuss the implications of constrained choice and show that it increases the likelihood that farmers will consider unethical behavior.     

Respecting The Autonomy of European and American Consumers: Defending Positive Labels on Gm Foods

In her recent article, “Does autonomy count in favor of labeling genetically modified food?,” Kirsten Hansen argues that in Europe, voluntary negative labeling of non-GM foods respects consumer autonomy just as well as mandatory positive labeling of foods with GM content. She also argues that because negative labeling places labeling costs upon those consumers that want to know whether food is GM, negative labeling is better policy than positive labeling. In this paper, we argue that Hansen’s arguments are mistaken in several respects. Most importantly, she underestimates the demands of respecting autonomy and overestimates the cost of positive labeling. Moreover, she mistakenly implies that only a small minority of people desire information about GM content. We also explore the extent to which her arguments would apply to the US context, and argue that any discussion of the relationship between autonomy and labeling should include not just considerations of consumer autonomy but also considerations of what we call citizen autonomy.     

Human Diets and Animal Welfare: the Illogic of the Larder

Few moral arguments have been made against vegetarian diets. One exception is the “Logic of the Larder:” We do animals a favor by purchasing their meat, eggs, and milk, for if we did not purchase these products, fewer animals would exist. This argument fails because many farm animals have lives that are probably not worth living, while others prevent a significant number of wild animals from existing. Even if this were not so, the purchase of animal products uses resources that could otherwise be used to bring a much greater number of animals into existence.     

A concept for simultaneous wasteland reclamation, fuel production, and socio-economic development in degraded areas in India: Need, potential and perspectives of Jatropha plantations

The concept of substituting bio‐diesel produced from plantations on eroded soils for conventional diesel fuel has gained wide‐spread attention in India. In recent months, the Indian central Government as well as some state governments have expressed their support for bringing marginal lands, which cannot be used for food production, under cultivation for this purpose. Jatropha curcas is a well established plant in India. It produces oil‐rich seeds, is known to thrive on eroded lands, and to require only limited amounts of water, nutrients and capital inputs. This plant offers the option both to cultivate wastelands and to produce vegetable oil suitable for conversion to bio‐diesel. More versatile than hydrogen and new propulsion systems such as fuel cell technology, bio‐diesel can be used in today's vehicle fleets worldwide and may also offer a viable path to sustainable transportation, i.e., lower greenhouse gas emissions and enhanced mobility, even in remote areas. Mitigation of global warming and the creation of new regional employment opportunities can be important cornerstones of any forward looking transportation system for emerging economies.     

The role of scientists in statutory interpretation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Like many federal statutes, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) contains vague or ambiguous language. The meaning imparted to the ESA's unclear language can profoundly impact the fates of endangered and threatened species. Hence, conservation scientists should contribute to the interpretation of the ESA when vague or ambiguous language contains scientific words or refers to scientific concepts. Scientists need to know at least these 2 facts about statutory interpretation: statutory interpretation is subjective and the potential influence of normative values results in different expectations for the parties involved. With the possible exception of judges, all conventional participants in statutory interpretation are serving their own interests, advocating for their preferred policies, or biased. Hence, scientists can play a unique role by informing the interpretative process with objective, policy‐neutral information. Conversely, scientists may act as advocates for their preferred interpretation of unclear statutory language. The different roles scientists might play in statutory interpretation raise the issues of advocacy and competency. Advocating for a preferred statutory interpretation is legitimate political behavior by scientists, but statutory interpretation can be strongly influenced by normative values. Therefore, scientists must be careful not to commit stealth policy advocacy. Most conservation scientists lack demonstrable competence in statutory interpretation and therefore should consult or collaborate with lawyers when interpreting statutes. Professional scientific societies are widely perceived by the public as unbiased sources of objective information. Therefore, professional scientific societies should remain policy neutral and present all interpretations of unclear statutory language; explain the semantics and science both supporting and contradicting each interpretation; and describe the potential consequences of implementing each interpretation. A review of scientists’ interpretations of the phrase “significant portion of its range” in the ESA is used to critique the role of scientists and professional societies in statutory interpretation.