At the forefront of international concerns about global legislation and regulation, a host of noted environmentalists and business ethicists examine ethical issues in consumption from the points of view of environmental sustainability, economic development, and free enterprise.

I discuss why integration of global climate change and human development aid programs requires consideration of some understudied uncertainties in making projections of future climate and environmental conditions at local and regional scales, and further, the value-laden policy consequences of dealing with uncertainties for national and international development programs. Additionally, I propose that conflicts between the interests of humans and other species be given greater attention than has been done by those involved in human development aid.

Environmental philosophers often assurne that we lack metaethical concepts and normative criteria for environmental decisions, but that we have all the facts we need from the environmental sciences. This is contested in the case of our obligation to future generations as affected by current decisions regarding increased fossil fuel use, decisions which affect both the inlmediate and long-range future, and whichmust be made deliberately or by default before we know the long-term effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Some (...) suggestions are offered about decision making in the absence of sufficient factual information. (shrink)

Philosophers and ecologists have proposed that ecological principles such as cooperation and ecosystern stability serve as a basis for environmental ethics. Requisite to understanding whether a cooperation based environmental ethic can be taken as an unqualified good is knowledge of the role of cooperation in the context of other interactions between species (e.g., cornpetition), and the significance of such interactions to ecosystem stability. Further, since the key ecological concept of stability has been ambiguously defined, the various definitions need to be (...) understood so that use of scientific information in philosophical discussion is accurate and consistent. (shrink)

Those designing sustainable development implementation schemes will inevitably look to scientists to help them understand sustainable development problems. Scientists have already made important contributions to the understanding of many serious environmental problems, such as the causal relationship between certain synthetic chemicals and destruction of the ozone layer. If scientists had not identified the relationship between upper atmospheric ozone concentrations and releases of chloroflorocarbons, government decisionmakers would not have agreed to action limiting their production. However, although causes and effects of some (...) environmental problems are understood well, others are not, such as the timing and magnitude of climate change caused by greenhouse gases. If global environmental problems are serious, there is an obvious and urgent need to increase scientific understanding of which human actions cause environmental degradation and how nations can proceed with needed development programs without causing further environmental damage. (shrink)

We provide examples of the extent and nature of environmental and human health problems and show why in the United States prevailing scientific and legal burden of proof requirements usually cannot be met because of the pervasiveness of scientific uncertainty. We also provide examples of how may assumptions, judgments, evaluations, and inferences in scientific methods are value-laden and that when this is not recognized results of studies will appear to be more factual and value-neutral than warranted. Further, we show that (...) there is a "tension" between the use of the 95 percent confidence rule as a normative basis to reduce speculation in scientific knowledge and other public policy and moral concerns embodied by the adoption of a precautionary principle. Finally, although there is no precise agreement regarding what a precautionary principle might entail, we make several recommendations regarding the placement of the burden of proof and the standard of proof that ought to be required in environmental and human health matters. (shrink)