‘Anthropocentric Indirect Arguments for Environmental Protection,’ Kevin Elliott; Anthropocentric Indirect Arguments: A Risky Business?
Energy scientist Amory Lovins is fond of pointing out that in the late 19th century, it was not picketing environmentalists that saved the whales being slaughtered en masse for oil used for lighting; it was the engineers and venture capitalists that made electricity a viable and scalable power source (Lovins, 2012). To put a finer point on it, humans adopted a practice that benefited the environment (to stop killing whales for oil) neither for nonanthropocentric reasons (e.g., that whales have rights) nor for direct anthropocentric reasons (e.g., that whales provide aesthetic benefits). Rather, the environment was unintentionally benefited (whales were preserved) because of a practice that was beneficial to humans (electricity was cheaper than whale oil). Today, support is gathering around the notion that environmental concerns and goals are most likely to be addressed and achieved through actions and policies that put humanwelfare first and incorporate the concerns of sectors of society to which environmentalists have traditionally beenopposed.Environmentalists, so the thinkinggoes,must becomefluent in the languages of energymarkets, economics, and finance; they should adopt a less hostile attitude toward capitalism and technology; and they must cease to reflexively regard words like ‘growth,’ ‘nuclear,’ and ‘development’ as, well, dirty. The movement, sometimes referred to as ‘bright green environmentalism,’ is spearheaded by the Break Through Institute, a think tank led by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Schellenberger (2007). Kevin Elliott notes that his argument for Anthropocentric Indirect Arguments (AIAs) builds on their proposals. I think AIAs are probably the least worst strategy for nudging the needle on environmental and energy policy, and Elliott’s defense of their usefulness is sensible and timely. It is sensible because of the reasons he lists in Table 1. It is timely because, in addition to the examples Elliott cites, the momentum that has recently gathered around efforts to combat climate change seems to be fueled, in large part, by explicit or implicit AIAs. For instance, much attention has been devoted this summer to a report on climate change commissioned by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, former
Air sampling reveals high emissions from gas field
When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog — but not strong whiffs of what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.
Cambodian refugee health care beliefs and practices.
Since 1975, when refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia first began coming to the United States, many articles have been written about Southeast Asian or Indochinese refugees and health care. A careful review of the literature shows that most of these articles have one thing in common: they are written primarily about Vietnamese and do not address the unique health care beliefs and practices of Lao or Cambodian refugees.1 Although some beliefs and practices are common to most Southeast Asians, many are not. Understanding at least that differences exist, and hopefully what some specific differences are, will allow nurses and others to give better care to the various people commonly grouped together as Southeast Asians. This article will introduce readers to some Cambodian beliefs and practices related to health care. Of the principle refugee groups admitted to the U.S. since 1975, the Cambodians are presenting the greatest challenges to health care providers. Cambodians are usually poorly understood by Americans, their health status statistics are hidden among the broad category of "Asian-Pacific Islanders" or "Indochinese Refugees," and cultural and institutional barriers combine to make access to care an overwhelming problem. The end results, of course, are more problems and more expense for the Cambodians, increased stress placed on an already terribly overstressed people, and ultimately greater demands and expense placed on the health care system. One of the most common misunderstandings about Cambodians is that they (and Lao) are basically the same as the Vietnamese. "They speak the same dialect don't they?" There are some similarities, but there are also very significant differences.