Equity Concerns over Climate Change Mitigation

Abstract

As a complicated concept with ethical implications, equity or fairness in the field of climate change mitigation concerns the relations not only between individual human beings but also between human beings and the nature. In this paper, after the review of equity between individuals, market and non-market attributes of emissions rights are distinguished and discussed. Based on the argument of equal per capita emissions rights, three types of emissions rights and the concept of minimum emissions rights as social security are proposed.     

Agricultural technology,wealth, and responsibility

Responsibility as a dual to human rights is presented as a moral alternative to extended, complex systems of animal and ecological rights. This simple idea of responsibility is then applied to four levels of agricultural technology: animal (nature) rights, conservation, organization of agriculture, and people versus planet relationships. The stewardship argument is freed from at least some of the complications of animal rights and ecology, but leaves responsibility with humans to do the right thing.The views expressed are the author's and do not necessarily represent policies or views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.     

On the moral acceptability of killing animals

According to a rights view it is acceptable to kill animals if they are innocent threats or shields or are in a lifeboat situation. However, according to advocates of such a view, our practices of killing animals for food or scientific research may be morally unacceptable. In this paper we argue that, even if we grant the basic assumptions of a rights view, a good deal of killing of animals for food and scientific research continues to be morally acceptable.     

WATER MARKETS AND DECENTRALIZED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: INTERNATIONAL PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES1

ABSTRACT: Because of its importance and the perceived inability of private sector sources to meet water demands, many countries have depended on the public sector to provide water services for their populations. Yet this has resulted in many inefficient public water projects and in inadequate supplies of good quality and reliable water. Decentralization of water management, including the use of water markets, cannot solve all of these water problems, but it can improve the efficiency of water allocation. When given adequate responsibility and authority, water user associations have effectively taken over water management activities at a savings to tax payers. Moreover, water markets add the potential benefit of improving water efficiency within a sector as well as providing a mechanism for reallocating water among sectors. The key question involves developing innovative mechanisms for reducing the transaction costs of organizing water users and of making water trades. Water rights need to be established which are recorded, tradable, enforceable, and separate from land if markets are to operate effectively. Also, institutions are needed that effectively resolve conflicts over water rights, including third party impacts and water quality concerns.     

RIVER RECREATION: PUBLIC ACCESS VS. RIPARIAN RIGHTS1

ABSTRACT: The issues involved in the conflict between the rights of the public and those of riparian landowners are examined by reviewing the public access situation with regard to inland streams in the State of Virginia. Consideration is given to the legal framework defining access rights and to the attitudes of riparian landowners regarding the access question. Existing provisions of law suggest only limited recognition of public rights, but this law is incompletely developed. A considerably broader concept of public rights could be developed within the existing framework due to the existence of unresolved questions. The analysis of landowner attitudes is based on a survey of a sample of riparian owners chosen from throughout the state. The questionnaire used in the survey contained 123 questions in a variety of areas, including landowners' perceptions of public rights, problems encountered as the result of recreational water use, attitudes toward state designation and protection of scenic rivers, and the acceptability of alternatives for increasing public access. Although the survey results indicate substantial acceptance of the concept of public use, the landowners expressed concern over governmental control of land use and did not indicate a generally acceptable means for increasing public use.     

THE EVOLUTION OF TEXAS WATER LAW AND THE IMPACT OF ADJUDICATION1

Texas' surface water law began its evolution during the Hispanic period of occupance. Later, the English riparian doctrine was adopted, and finally, in the late 1800's, the prior appropriation doctrine was superimposed, resulting in an exceedingly complex dual system. Though the judiciary, legislature, and state water agencies have wrestled with the problem of coordinating these diverse water rights and more accurately delineating and measuring riparian rights and water use since early in this century, until recently all attempts were unsuccessful. The unknown riparian element, in particular, made coordinated and efficient management and administration of the state's surface water resources impossible. Finally, measurable progress toward solution of these problems began in 1967 with passage of the Water Rights Adjudication Act, aimed at identifying all unrecorded surface water rights claims and eventually merging all claims into the permit system. This paper examines the gradual evolution of Texas' curious blend of Hispanic-English riparian rights and later appropriate rights; discusses the resultant problems of water resource administration; and traces the progress of the ongoing water rights adjudication, a lengthy, expensive, and complex procedure, which should eventually make possible more efficient administration of all surface water rights.     

WATER RIGHTS,EMINENT DOMAIN,AND THE PUBLIC TRUST1

ABSTRACT: Faced with the necessity of meeting growing municipal water requirements in areas where available supplies are completely allocated, numerous cities throughout the West are turning to their eminent domain powers to affect a reallocation of water from less preferred uses to municipal uses, thus bringing about a sharp conflict with agricultural interests. As a basis for discussing these eminent domain powers, this paper begins with a brief review of the development of property rights. The existence of both private and public (social) rights in the “bundle of rights” is noted. In recent years the Public Trust Doctrine has been used to limit private rights in property, and to protect and strengthen social rights. A case study which focuses on a conflict between individual and social interests in water rights is discussed. This case involves the City of Thorton, Colorado which initiated municipal condemnation proceedings to acquire the water rights and structures of two nearby irrigation companies. The case represents an attempt to incorporate the spirit of the Public Trust Doctrine into legislation which sets forth procedures for resolution of similar water rights conflicts that will inevitably become more numerous throughout the West in the future.     

Utilitarian killing,replacement, and rights

The ethical theory underlying much of our treatment of animals in agriculture and research is the moral agency view. It is assumed that only moral agents, or persons, are worthy of maximal moral significance, and that farm and laboratory animals are not moral agents. However, this view also excludes human non-persons from the moral community. Utilitarianism, which bids us maximize the amount of good (utility) in the world, is an alternative ethical theory. Although it has many merits, including impartiality and the extension of moral concern to all sentient beings, it also appears to have many morally unacceptable implications. In particular, it appears to sanction the killing of innocents when utility would be maximized, including cases in which we would deliberately kill and replace a being, as we typically do to animals on farms and in laboratories. I consider a number of ingenious recent attempts by utilitarians to defeat the killing and replaceability arguments, including the attempt to make a place for genuine moral rights within a utilitarian framework. I conclude that utilitarians cannot escape the killing and replaceability objections. Those who reject the restrictive moral agency view and find they cannot accept utilitarianism's unsavory implications must look to a different ethical theory to guide their treatment of humans and non-humans.     

The Supreme Court,the commerce clause,and natural resources

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the commerce clause controls the balance of power between state and federal governments in the United States. An understanding of the relationship between the different government levels is essential for resource managers concerned with resource and environmental issues. This study examines selected Supreme Court decisions between 1976 and 1988 to answer three questions raised by the commerce clause: (1) Is the regulated item an article of commerce? (2) Do state laws burden interstate commerce? (3) Is federal commerce regulation limited? The balance of power among the justices and the commerce clause theories affecting the federal role in resource management are also examined. Since ratification of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has continuously increased federal power, but states have power to act independently as long as contradictory federal laws do not exist and state law does not impermissively affect commerce. If Congress regulates an individual's use of resources, their power is unquestioned. Future Court decisions will not significantly reduce the federal role in resource management even if the Court's membership changes. Even the supporters of states' rights on the Court realize increased federal power is a necessary part of the country's evolution. The purpose of the commerce clause is to create a national economic unit with free location principles. The Court supports this purpose today and will in the future.