title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
Phasing nuclear out would be too expensive Any phase out of nuclear energy in the EU would be tremendously costly, to an extent indebted Europe cannot afford. First costs stem from closing of nuclear reactors. These would include safely disposing or sealing all radioactive materials involved in production, closing buildings, dismantling the generators etc. In the UK the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estimates that 19 nuclear plants in the UK that are set for decommissioning will cost £70 billion. [1] Secondly, new generation of power plants would need to be built. Suitable places would need to be found, land bought and prepared for construction, power plants and electricity network constructed. These alone would cost sums counted in billions of euros regardless of whether these plants are renewable or not. Moreover, social costs would have to be included, since many highly specialised jobs in the nuclear power industry would be irrecoverably lost. The nuclear power industry in the UK alone employs 44,000 people. [2] [1] BBC News, ‘Nuclear clean-up ‘to cost £70bn’’, 30 March 2006, [2] Cogent, ‘Nuclear industry profile’, 2013, | |
Highly efficient when operating at high rates The nuclear power plants have huge energy outputs. That means we can produce energy faster at lower price, due to the high energy density of uranium (we can extract far more energy from it than from any other source). Thanks to this fact, there is no need to build many power plants, since a few nuclear plants can easily supply whole country, for example in Slovakia only 2 power plants supply more than half of electric energy. This is beneficial because residents object to having power generation nearby, building one nuclear plant affects many fewer people than the number of wind turbines that would be needed to generate the same amount of electricity. The nuclear power plant being built at Olkiluoto in Finland will produce 13TWh per year [1] equivalent to more than 3000 wind turbines. [2] This has the additional environmental benefit of requiring fewer materials for construction. [1] ‘Olkiluoto 3 – Finland’, Areva, accessed 18 November 2013, [2] ‘FAQ – Output’, National Wind Watch, , This gives 3.285GWh per year for a turbine which would be more like 4000, but it also states that the wind industry say their turbines work at a higher capacity than that accounted for in their calculation. | |
The most recent power plants such as Olkiluoto are third generation plants. Fourth generation plants are still decades away. Yes research into Fusion must continue but the plant that is being built is simply a test plant and even it won’t be fully testing until 2027, it would be decades after that before any commercial plants come into operation even if everything works. Research into both types but particularly fusion are separate from the nuclear power plants that Europe currently has. These could all be shut down without any impact on research. Moreover why spend billions on research when we already have technologies that provide clean electricity? | |
The problem with this argument is that it prioritizes the enjoyment of some individuals over others with no real justification. The grey wolf, for example, went extinct in the Yellowstone region in the first place because humans considered it a pest and a threat to livestock and so hunted it to extinction. Clearly these people didn't enjoy the 'diversity' the grey wolf provided. We don't usually give something the force of law regarding animals just because some people enjoy it. For example, the UK has now banned fox hunting even though a great many people found it to be a source of pleasure and recreation. [1] If everyone desired the protection of all endangered species, there would be no need for this law, but the fact that a law is needed to restrain human action shows that not everyone 'enjoys' this biodiversity in the same way. [1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006. | |
Aesthetics An environment with a great diversity of plant and animal species in it can act as a source for art and entertainment, enriching the lives of humans. Thus the preservation of endangered species is an important part of ensuring this diversity continues to exist so people and enjoy and be inspired by the many varied kinds of life on this earth. A good example of this is the re-introduction of the grey wolf into Yellowstone Park in the United States (where it had previously become extinct due to human action), which added to the biodiversity of the region and caused a greater influx of tourists into the park. [1] People enjoy being surrounded by different kinds of nature, and so protecting endangered species is an important part of protecting human enjoyment. [1] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008. | |
Superior human intellect and sentience only means that we should make sure we consider the moral ramifications of our actions, not that we should take any particular action as a result. It is entirely in keeping with this for us to conclude that human life and enjoyment are more important than animal life and species survival, and so for us to decide not to protect endangered species when this (as it by definition always will) infringes upon human benefits and enjoyment. | |
Protecting endangered species protects the interests of humans Protecting endangered species helps protect humans: Humans actually benefit in a large number of ways from the protection of endangered species and thus continuing biodiversity. Firstly, the diversity of life and living systems is considered by many scientists to be a necessary condition for human development. We live in a world built on a carefully balanced ecosystem in which all species play a role, and the removal of species from this can cause negative consequences for the whole ecosystem, including humans. [1] There is also the potential for almost any species to hold currently-unknown future benefits to humans through products they could provide. One example of this is the scrub mint, an endangered plant species which has been found to contain an anti-fungal agent and a natural insecticide, and thus holds great potential for use that benefits humans. [2] Endangered species have also been known to hold the key to medical breakthroughs which save human lives. One example of this is the Pacific yew (a tree species) which became the source of taxol, one of the most potent anticancer compounds ever discovered. [3] Biodiversity also helps protect humans in that different species' differing reactions to ecological problems may in fact act as a kind of 'early warning' system of developing problems which may one day negatively affect people. This was the case with the (now banned) dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) pesticide, as the deterioration of the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon through their exposure to DDT in fact alerted humans to the potential health hazards of this pesticide, not just to animals but also to humans. [4] Thus the preservation of endangered species helps to protect humans, as this means plants and animals continue to play their specific role in the world's ecosystem which humans rely on, can act as an 'early warning' for problems which may affect humans, and may hold the key to scientific and medical breakthroughs which can greatly benefit humanity. Al this could be lost through the careless extinction of plant and animal species. [1] Ishwaran, N., & Erdelen, W. “Biodiversity Futures”, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[4]. May 2005 [2] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008. [3] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008. [4] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008. | |
This argument fails to take into account the costs of protecting endangered species and weigh them against the potential harms of them becoming extinct. In a world where only 5% of plant species have been surveyed for their potential medicinal value, [1] this means protecting the survival of the other 95% purely for the potential value that only a fraction of them may possess. All of this means denying development human development now, by not opening areas up for agriculture or not constructing housing. These are very real costs which impact upon peoples' lives, and may even outweigh those scientific and medical advances which may or may not be found in currently endangered species. [1] Kurpis, Lauren. “Why Save?” EndangeredSpecie.com. Copyright 1997-2002. | |
By this argument, no human generation could ever decide that protecting a species is more trouble than its worth and so let it become extinct, as there would always be the theoretical possibility of a future generation that might regret this choice. Every choice we make as a generation constrains and widens the choices available to future generations. If we protect endangered species and therefore limit agricultural and housing land (to protect their environments) we deny future generations more plentiful food supplies and better housing. We may even deny the existence of more humans in the future by not having enough food to feed a population which could grow faster if the food supply was greater. We cannot allow the remote possibility of future regret to cause us to take actions which a great many people will 'regret' in the present. | |
Humanity bears a moral responsibility to other species Human moral responsibility to other species: Humans are unique and unprecedented in life on earth in that their intelligence and sentience far surpasses that of any other species ever known to have existed. Humans are not simply forced to kill or ignore other species by instinct alone, as other species are, but rather can make a variety of choices based not only on information but on moral grounds. Thus with our greater power comes a greater responsibility to act in a moral fashion, and not simply to prioritize our own human good over that of other species. The ability of animal species, for example, to feel pain and suffering is something we should consider and try to avoid, as we recognise that pain is bad for ourselves, and thus must be bad for animals as well. Similarly if we believe our own survival is a good thing, we should recognise that the survival of other species is also a moral good, and act accordingly to protect endangered species. | |
Humanity owes a moral responsibility to future generations Human moral responsibility to future generations: Species extinction is an irrevocable occurrence. Outside of the film 'Jurassic Park', extinct species cannot be summoned back from the grave once human action has put them there. This means that when a current generation makes the decision not to protect an endangered species and thus allows human action to drive it to extinction, this denies future generations the ability to make up their own minds about the pros and cons of the survival of that endangered species, especially considering that they might want that species to exist for the aforementioned scientific, medical, aesthetic or moral reasons. For example, there is a great modern-day interest in the dodo species of bird which was hunted to extinction in Mauritius in the 17th Century. [1] The opinion of many in the modern world today is one of regret at the bird's extinction and that it should have been protected, but a lack of consideration of the wishes of future generations in the 17th Century has meant that the humans of the 21st Century are denied the ability to decide on the value of this species themselves. Because we place a moral value on the ability of humans to make decisions (as we consider it to be a good thing when we ourselves have this ability) we should recognise that the possibly differing opinions of future generations should constrain our choices somewhat, and we should protect endangered species so that future generations can decide for themselves regarding their value. [1] BBC News “Dodo skeleton find in Mauritius”. BBC News. 24 June 2006. | |
Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher. | |
These possible harms can be outweighed by the gains we make as humanity from protecting these species. It is important to note that the way we benefit from protecting endangered species extends benefits not just to the current generation but to future generations in terms of the preservation of biodiversity for scientific and aesthetic reasons. By contrast, allowing farmers to hunt to extinction species which are a threat to their livestock is only a short-term gain which applies almost exclusively to the farmers themselves and not to humanity as a whole. | |
The term "endangered" is inconsistently applied The practical difficulties of the 'endangered' status: The complications which have grown up surrounding the 'endangered' status given to some species are in themselves a good reason to do away with this cumbersome and harmful practice. It should firstly be noted that it can be incredibly difficult to get species removed from the 'protected' lists even once they have been added even when their numbers show they are no longer in jeopardy. The grey wolf again serves as a good example; it is considered to be 'endangered' (and thus protected) in the United States, as there are only 3,700 such wolves in the lower 48 States today, despite the fact that an estimated 58,000 grey wolves live in the wild in Alaska and Canada. [1] This is clearly an example of a misapplication of the 'endangered' label but which is incredibly difficult to revoke once it has been given, due to pressure from ecological groups and the media. The sort of laws used to 'protect' endangered species may even incentivize the exact opposite kind of behaviour on the part of landowners. When, for example, a farmer finds on his land an animal from an endangered species, and the law thus requires him to make significant changes to his farming practices to protect the creature, this imposes a significant economic cost on him. This means that that farmer may have a large economic incentive to simply dispose of the creature and hide the evidence of its presence, when in the absence of the law the farmer might not take any steps to intentionally exterminate all examples of that endangered species on his land. Economists writing in the Journal of Law and Economics found an example of similarly perverse incentives provided by endangered species protection law amongst logging companies in the United States. When faced with a protected species of woodpecker which preferred to nest in trees at least 70 years old, and which when found, the law required timber owners not to harvest wood within a large area around that woodpecker's nest, loggers simply responded by harvesting more trees in areas where these woodpeckers might appear and by intentionally harvesting tees at age 40 instead of waiting for them to mature to 70 and thus becoming potential habitats for the woodpeckers. This resulted in even less available habitat for the woodpeckers than before the protection laws were passed [2] This example helps to further illustrate how 'protecting' endangered species requires cumbersome legislation that is prone to mistakes, difficult to retract and may incentivize even more harmful behaviour towards these species than if the laws did not exist. [1] Bailey, Ronald. “Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up”. Reason.com. December 31, 2003. [2] Lueck, Dean, and Michael, Jeffery A. “Preemptive Habitat Destruction Under the Endangered Species Act”. Journal of Law and Economics. Vol. 46. No. 1. April 2003 | |
Human rights trump those of lower animals Why human rights always trump animal rights: It has already been established that laws protecting endangered species cause harm to humans by denying them the opportunity to engage in behaviour they would otherwise desire to do. The problem with this is that it elevates 'animal rights' to an equal plane with human rights and therefore restricts human life and happiness. This is wrong as humans enjoy superior mental faculties to animals and also have greater sentience, meaning that humans are aware of their pain, suffering and the opportunities denied to them (for example through laws restricting land development) in a way in which animals are not. As a consequence, we should cause humans to have less happiness in life in order to protect the lives of 'endangered species', as animals' lives, 'happiness' and suffering are less meaningful than that of humans. | |
Species extinction is an inevitable process Species extinction is a part of the natural world: Within evolution species naturally go arise and later become extinct as they struggle to adapt to changing environments and competition with other species. This be regarded as a part of the 'survival of the fittest' which drives evolution. Most extinctions that have occurred did so naturally and without human intervention. It is, for example, estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct, and humans have existed at the same time as only a fraction of these species. [1] Therefore it cannot be claimed that species going extinct will somehow upset the delicate natural balance or destroy ecosystems. Ecologists and conservationists have in fact struggled to demonstrate the increased material benefits to humans of 'intact' wild systems over man-made ones such as farms and urban environments, which many species simply adapt to. [2] Therefore any claims that humans causing the extinction of other species are somehow acting 'un-naturally' or 'immorally' or that they are risking ecological collapse as a consequence are mistaken, as they fail to understand that extinction occurs as a natural fact and that ecosystems adapt accordingly. No other species acts to prevent species besides itself from becoming extinct, and therefore again allowing another species to die out is in no way 'un-natural.' [1] Raup, David M. “Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?” W.W. Norton and Company. New York. 1991 [2] Jenkins, Martin. “Prospects for Biodiversity”. Science. 14 November 2003. | |
Protecting endangered species can harm human communities Protecting endangered species can harm humans: Protecting endangered species by definition means restricting activity that humans would otherwise want to do, be it by turning woodland into farmland, turning meadows into housing developments, or by preventing us from eliminating 'pest' species which kill livestock or damage crops. For example, the reintroduction of the grey wolf into Yellowstone Park has increased once more the risk to livestock in the region and caused economic harms to ranchers there. [1] Some of these species may even pose a threat to human lives, which may have been why they were hunted to extinction in the first place. In any case, less agricultural land and less land for housing can only mean higher food and housing costs (due to their decreased supplies in the face of a rising human population) for people, which has a detrimental impact upon human life. [1] Bailey, Ronald. “Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up”. Reason.com. December 31, 2003. | |
This argument fails to note that states restrict human behaviour towards animals with the aim of protecting animals in many situations, not just that of 'endangered species'. For example the aforementioned fox hunting ban, which outlawed hunting foxes with dogs as it was deemed excessively 'cruel' to the animal, even though many people enjoyed the practice. [1] This is done not only because humans are able to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than animals but also because animal suffering tends to produce a negative emotional response in many humans (such as amongst those who disliked the suffering of foxes in hunts and pushed for the ban), and thus we prevent human suffering by preventing animal suffering. [1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006. | |
This is argument for the reform of these laws, not against the laws themselves. Laws could also be introduced, for example, to require loggers to allow a certain percentage of their trees to reach the appropriate age for woodpecker nesting, or better review panels created to consider removing the 'endangered' label when it is no longer appropriate. These laws can shift as we see incentives shifting in order to ensure that good behaviour in incentivized overall. | |
To say the job numbers are questionable is an understatement. The Department of State issued a report in August putting the estimated number at between 5-6000. [1] Furthermore, Trans-Canada, one of the major shareholders has backed off larger estimates in public, floating figures in the 20-25,000 range. TransCanada's initial estimate of 20,000 — which it said includes 13,000 direct construction jobs and 7,000 jobs among supply manufacturers — is far more conservative. [2] Why the discrepancy? The Washington Post investigated and found that the same author of the Keystone report, Ray Perryman also wrote a report predicting massive job gains from a Wind Farm project. Among the predicted jobs were: “51 dancers and choreographers, 138 dentists, 176 dental hygienists, 100 librarians, 510 bread bakers, 448 clergy, 154 stenographers, 865 hairdressers, 136 manicurists, 110 shampooers, 65 farmers, and (our favorite) 1,714 bartenders.“ [3] Furthermore all of these estimates ignore potential job losses they may affect existing workers in the oil industry once the Pipeline is complete. It is perfectly possible that there will be a net loss of jobs. As for the Unions, it will provide short-term construction jobs, which is why they support it. But almost any project would do the same. [1] United States Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, ‘Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Project’, 26 August 2011, [2] Kessler, 2011, [3] ibid | |
Job creation The XL Pipeline project has the potential to create a large number of jobs, both in its construction, and in refining and processing at its terminal points within the United States. Keystone Pipelines has produced a report which indicates that the Pipeline should create 118,000 jobs, with as many as 250,000 in total after spinoffs have been counted. [1] Labor Unions have accepted this line and are aggressively lobbying for the Pipeline, [2] even though it means siding with Republicans and against their own party. Furthermore, Politicians ranging from Jon Huntsman to Bob Casey have embraced the job-creating p[3]otential of the Project. [1] The Perryman Group, ‘The Impact of Developing the Keystone XL Pipeline Project on Business Activity in the US’ June 2010, [2] Fox, Liam, ‘Unions Back Keystone XL Pipeline Threatens Clash with Occupy Movement’, News Junkie Post, 3 December 2011, [3] Kessler, Glenn, ‘Keystone pipeline jobs claims: a bipartisan fumble’, Washington Post, 14 December 2011, | |
Canada’s friendship with the United States is based on shared values, interests and a shared language, things it does not and never can share with China in the foreseeable future. As such, while delaying approval of the Keystone Pipeline might well cost the United States a pipeline, it is unlikely to cost America Canadian friendship. Furthermore, while the delay of the Pipeline project may well have made the Chinese bid more attractive, the fact that the Chinese government already owns 10% of the Canadian oil industry and was willing to put up the money [1] for a Pipeline is an indication that they may well be willing to a build a second Pipeline of their own regardless of what the United States does, even if it does not make economic sense in the short-run. [1] Radia, Andy, ‘Should the Harper government allow Chinese ownership of Alberta’s oil sands’, Canada Politics, 13 October 2011, | |
The pipeline will reduce American dependence on Middle Eastern and Latin American oil Currently, the United States imports nearly two-thirds of its Petroleum, with the leading suppliers including nations such as Nigeria, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. [1] Due to political instability and the difficult US relations with these nations, US supplies cannot be considered secure, and with the results of research into alternative sources of energy being decades away from fruition the United States needs alternative sources of oil today. One option is Canada, which is individually already the United States’ single largest energy supplier. Canada’s known reserves total 179 billion barrels, placing it third behind Saudi Arabia, but some estimates have put its total at as high as 2 trillion barrels. [2] The XL Pipeline project would help bring this oil overland into the United States. On the Canadian end, the increased market access would lead to rapid development, which in turn would increase Canadian capacity to the level to which it could reach a much greater portion of US demand. Furthermore, the United States enjoys close relations and an open border with Canada, meaning that this oil will likely arrive without the strings attached that come from buying from Venezuela or the Middle East. In the case of the latter the Pipeline would allow the US to disengage from the region to a degree. Even if hypothetically Canadian relations were to turn frosty, the existence of the pipeline would nevertheless ensure that the US would remain the only viable market. [1] U.S. Energy Information Administration, ‘U.S. Imports by Country of Origin’, [2] Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, ‘Alberta’s Oil and Natural Gas Industry’, | |
The XL Pipeline, upon its completion would simply be replacing one source of Oil dependency with another. And what Canada makes up for in political friendliness, could be undone by the fact that US oil would be coming from a much smaller number of sources. Furthermore, resolving US supply problems will not solve the global energy shortage that will arrive as Oil deposits shrink and Chinese demand rises. Oil will remain a source of political instability. The only true path to energy independence is to find alternative renewable sources that do not leave the United States and the rest of the world dependent on resources that are limited both in amount and in their geographical locations. The XL Pipeline might even undermine these efforts as it will create a false sense of security. | |
Rejecting the pipeline bid would worsen US relations with Canada Canada’s Oil reserves will be of major strategic value in the next century. Currently the United States is Canada’s preferred trading partner and strategic ally, both because of a history of past cooperation, and because the US is both more willing and able to support Canadian claims to the Arctic than China. The Pipeline would consolidate this relationship, ensuring that the development of Canada’s reserves would occur with the American market in mind, because once built, it would be far more expensive to build a second Pipeline than to simply use the existing one. The United States, is not however, Canada’s only option. Canada is determined to sell the oil one way or another, and an American refusal will not save the environment. What it will do is make Canada look elsewhere. The Canadian government publicly floated a joint-Canadian-Chinese pipeline proposal which would bring the oil to the Pacific after the Obama Administration delayed consideration of the project until after 2012. [1] Just as the Keystone Pipeline would lock Canada into the US Market, a decision to develop Canadian reserves with the Chinese market in mind would be difficult to reverse, and undermine the energy independence of the United States rather than secure it. [1] Tan, Florence, and Hua, Judy, ‘Analysis: Harper’s bet may pay off; China open to Canadian oil’, Reuters, 25 November 2011, | |
Almost any form of producing and transporting oil risks an environmental disaster if things go wrong, as was demonstrated in the summer of 2010 by the major British Petroleum spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Historically however land-based Pipelines have been far safer than Oil Freighters or off-shore platforms because of the ease of access, which means that spills can usually be responded to rapidly. The real damage with the BP Spill was due to its isolated location in deep water and the consequent difficulty of reaching it. Furthermore, fears of the carbon emissions are flawed because they are based on the assumption that if the Pipeline is not approved the Tar Sands will not be developed. But this is not the case. The Canadian Government has already shown interested in an alternative Chinese proposal which would see a Pipeline built to deliver the oil to the Pacific, and eventually to the Chinese market. [1] If the oil is going to be burned one way or another, it is best for the United States to do it, because the United States enjoys higher fuel efficiency standards and generally cleaner vehicles. [1] Yahoo news, 2012, | |
America should not become more dependent on oil A successful development of the Pipeline would deepen the Unite States’ dependence on Oil, and undermine the drive towards renewable fuels. Historically, consumers switch fuels not when alternatives are available, but when economic forces cause costs to rise to such a point that it becomes inefficient not to switch. This is one reason why the EU has found such success with taxes on gasoline which brought its price above 4$ a gallon long before it reached that price on the market. The result was a rush to adopt smaller and more fuel efficient cars, and to ration other energy consuming hardware. The main result of the Keystone Pipeline will be to lower fuel costs in the short-term, under pricing electric cars and alternative fuel sources. When gas prices finally rise, as they eventually will, the United States will find itself far behind the rest of the World in renewable technology. Given that renewable technology will be one of the major sources of economic power in the next few decades, choosing short-term savings over-long term investment seems like a bad idea. | |
Environmental risks There are serious environmental factors that should be fully examined before any decision is made to approve the Pipeline project. For one thing, the Pipeline will mostly extract Oil from Tar Sands. Extracting oil from tar sands is much more complicated than pumping conventional crude oil out of the ground. It requires steam-heating the sands to produce a petroleum slurry, then further dilution. One result of this process, the Canadian Environmental Ministry says, is that greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector as a whole will rise by nearly one-third from 2005 to 2020 — even as other sectors are reducing emissions. [1] Former NASA Climatologist James Hansen has suggested that if the Pipeline is completed it is “Game Over for the Planet”. [2] Furthermore, the path of the proposed Pipeline will bring it close to the Ogallala Aquifer which provides 30% of the United States’ total irrigation supply and 82% of the drinking water to the 2.3 million people who live within the region it serves. Furthermore, within that region is just under 20% of all US agricultural production.[3] A major spill along the Pipeline would have the potential to render the entire Aquifer unusable. [1] Girling, Russell K., ‘The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will be built responsibly’, The Hill’s Congress Blog, 13 July 2011, [2] Mayer, Jane, ‘Taking it to the streets’, The New Yorker, 28 November 2011, [3] US Geological Survey, ‘High Plains Regional Ground-Water Study’, | |
History does show that renewable technology tends to develop when it is economically efficient. Alternatives to fossil fuels will be found when fossil fuels are too expensive to buy, and therefore people are willing to buy what is initially an inferior product. It is only then after general adoption, that the inferior product will improve to the point at which it is equal to the product it is replacing. The fact is that as long as there are large scale supplies of fossil fuels available, and those supplies are plentiful enough to be affordable, consumers will be unwilling to accept the inferior performance they will get from electric cars, or the inferior comfort of smaller vehicles. The EU, with a far superior public transportation system is a bad comparison with the United States, as it is likely that the price at which Americans would accept the same sort of compromises is much higher, and no amount of environmental concern or preaching about alternative energy will generate the political capital to force them to if they don’t have to. Furthermore, what the opposition ignores in this argument is that it is often the poor who will suffer the most from artificially high fuel prices. Raising prices will increasingly make driving a luxury good, limiting the mobility of low income workers. This will both reduce their standard of living (i.e. ability to take vacations) and reduce their options for work and therefore for advancement. | |
Bullfighting has existed for thousands of years in the cultures it is practiced in, and yet these cultures have not become inherently barbaric or bloodthirsty, so arguments that say bullfighting has such effects on people are simply incorrect. What is at stake is not just 'entertainment' but rather something that many in these bullfighting countries perceive as being an art form intrinsic to their culture. Madrid has recognized and protected bullfighting not as a sport but as an art form.(1) Bullfighting supporters in Europe have even campaigned for UNESCO World Heritage status for bullfighting.(14) This cultural value makes bullfighting particularly significant and justifies any suffering the bull may endure. | |
Harming animals for entertainment is immoral If a creature suffers then there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. All animals are sentient beings that experience joy, happiness, fear and pain, in the same way that human beings do. As Bentham previously noted, it does not matter that they cannot express this suffering in the same way as humans can (by speaking about it) or reason about their suffering in the same way -the important thing is that they can suffer in the first place. We can have no right whatsoever to make them suffer for our 'enjoyment'. If any torture inflicted to an animal deserves condemnation, bullfights are the worst kind of torture since they are performed solely in the name of entertainment. We must end the animals' torture and stop these shows of brutality and violence. It is too small a step from the intentional infliction of pain on an animal to the torture and killing of human beings.(5) Bullfights perpetuate the idea that injuring and killing an animal for amusement is acceptable, and that is not an idea which any state with any concern for animals, or for its human citizens, should wish to be prevalent. Part of the 'attraction' of bullfighting for crowds is witnessing death. Advocates of the practice make this into an argument for the practice. But, a desire to see death in front of one's own eye's amounts to bloodlust. Why should humans be accommodated in such a morbid pursuit? Eric Gallego, an animal rights protester, said in 2010: “Bullfighting is a bloody entertainment. We must stop this cruelty because we don’t want to be a barbaric society in Europe.”(6) This argument applies just as much to any other country in the world: why would we want to encourage people to enjoy pain and suffering, as we have laws which make causing pain and suffering illegal (both for humans and animals) in almost every other context? Bullfighting is therefore immoral, and encourages cruel and immoral behaviour in other areas, and so it should be banned. | |
Many cultural and sporting events involve serious risks. Football, American football, rugby, boxing, acrobatics, and many other cultural and sporting events involve serious, inherent risks to humans. But, they are not banned. Bullfighting should not, therefore, be alienated for the risks that it entails. Also, the risks of bullfighting bring out courage and bravery. If there were no risks, there could be no bravery in bullfighting. The matador wants to take these risks so that he can demonstrate his courage, and the fans honor that ultimate risk-taking. These risks should not be shunned, but celebrated, just as they often are in other cultural and sporting events. | |
Bullfighting is a form of animal torture Bullfighting constitutes animal torture because it is exactly the suffering of the animal from which the entertainment of the crowd is drawn, and the level of suffering inflicted is on the level of that caused by torture. Jeremy Bentham argued that "Cock-fights and bull-fights, the chase of the hare and the fox, fishing, and other amusements of the same kind, necessarily suppose a want of reflection or a want of humanity; since these sports inflict upon sensitive beings the most lively sufferings, and the most lingering and painful death that can be imagined."(1) The want of humanity even in modern bullfighting is shown by the sadistic cruelties inflicted on the bulls: According to anti-bullfight veterinarian José Zaldívar, in the great majority of cases, the matador missed the vital spot that would cause the bull to die quickly. "These provoke internal bleeding. It is a slow, agonising death – as the high acidity of their blood proves."(2) At the end of the fight, the bull may not be yet dead while his body parts are cut-off to be kept as trophies. Spanish bull breeders receive EU agricultural subsidies, meaning that, in the EU, taxpayers' money from all countries (not just those with legal bullfighting) goes to support this terrible industry.(3) Also, in order to reduce the risk to the matador, sometimes the bull’s horns are shaved. This can inflict some pain on the bull and can also make it more sensitive to other forms of pain during the fight.(3) Moreover, bulls are not the only creatures to suffer in bullrings. The tormented bull does not understand that it is the man on the horse's back that is causing his pain, only that he is in agony. He therefore sees the horse as his enemy as much as the man. It's not unusual for horses used in bullfights to be so badly gored by the bulls that they have to be killed, but only after they have been dragged from the ring and the view of the spectators.(4) All this suffering makes bullfighting as unacceptable as the many other kinds of animal cruelty which most countries ban, such as cockfighting, dogfighting or any other form of grievous harm inflicted on an animal for 'entertainment' purposes.(2) We have these laws because governments have generally acknowledged the truth of Bentham's words: "It doesn't matter if they can reason; it doesn't matter if they can speak; what does matter is if they can SUFFER."(5) All nations need to follow through on this principle by making bullfighting illegal, just like any other form of animal torture. | |
Bullfighting is not about torturing for enjoyment; clean and quick kills are what is prized most by the bullfighting community. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8) It is naïve to pretend that the alternative for bulls and cows is a long, happy life in the meadows and then a natural death. Rather, bulls and cows are kept and bred for their meat and eventual slaughter, a process which can be made to seem just as horrific as bullfighting if the same descriptive language is used. There is no significant moral difference between watching a bull die in a bullfight for enjoyment and having a cow killed to make meat so people can enjoy eating it. Must not it be so, according to Bentham's logic, that eating meat for enjoyment displays as much 'want of humanity' as bullfighting? Indeed, in many ways bullfighting is at least more honest: the violence is clear and there for all to see, whereas the death of the cow is hidden from the consumer of a hamburger. Bullfighting is in no way uniquely cruel or even more cruel than eating meat, and so to ban it would be unjustified. | |
Bullfighting is too dangerous to humans to justify Many matadors are gored each year. In 2010, famed matador Julio Aparicio was gored in the throat by a bull during the Festival of Saint Isidro. The bulls horn went through his neck and throat and up through his mouth. Such gruesome scenes, and the risks that matadors must take with their lives, have no place in a modern society.(7) The culture and audience pressure of bullfighting actually increase the danger for matadors. The bullfighters perceived and praised as 'the best' are the ones that come closest to the bull, letting its horns pass inches by the fighter’s side, etc. The greater the risk for the bullfighter, the greater the reward from the crowd. The bullfighter is not trying to stay as far away as possible in order to make a riskless kill; they are trying to demonstrate their courage and bravery in the face of potentially fatal risks.(8) In Spain and most other countries with bullfighting, the horns of bulls are not shaved, but rather kept sharp, increasing the danger for the matador.(8) The state bans many other kinds of activities on the grounds that they are harmful to the participants: taking narcotics is illegal, driving without a seatbelt is illegal, and in many countries even legal guns are required to be fitted with safety devices to protect the user. This is yet another instance where, if the state did not step in, individuals would enter into certain activities which would be harmful to them. The need for the state is especially keen here due to the pressure to take risks put on matadors and others by the audience and the bullfighting community, which may lead many of them to take risks, and suffer injuries, they otherwise would not, for fear of losing 'face'. Bullfighting is just too dangerous to humans to allow, and so the state should step in and ban bullfighting to protect all those involved. | |
Tourists will visit Spain and other bullfighting countries regardless of whether or not bullfighting exists, and as people become more ethically aware and act accordingly while on holiday, tourist attendance at the shows looks set to fall even further. Indeed, a poll commissioned in April 2007 found that 89% of the British public would not visit a bullfight when on a holiday.(11)(3) Therefore the loss of tourist income will be minimal, as bullfighting does not even appeal to most tourists. Those profits which do ensue from bullfighting generally end up in the hands of a small bullfighting elite, not the general population. Moreover, almost everywhere bullfighting requires significant government subsidies to function. The subsidies that prop up this declining industry take money away from serious social problems such as access to public health, education, infrastructures, the elderly, public safety, social housing and environmental policies.(11) | |
Many traditions have been defended for their cultural, traditional value. Stoning women for immodesty is one of them. Such tradition-for-tradition's-sake arguments do not actually prove anything, as cultures are constantly evolving and changing -the ban on bullfights can be just one more such change.(11) The bullfighting tradition is based on cruelty to bulls, and so simply being 'old' and 'traditional' is not enough of a justification. Cruelty is cruelty no matter where in the world it happens. Our understanding of animals has improved a great deal in recent times. There is no place in the 21st century for a ‘sport’ which relies on animal cruelty for ‘entertainment’. Moreover, people need not see a bull die in order to understand death. Video, pictures, books, and news reports all make it possible for individuals to learn about and understand death. It's occurring around us naturally all the time. It is completely unnecessary, therefore, to artificially produce death in the bullfighting arena in order to create an appreciation of the cycle of life and death, etc. Nature watching is also a good alternative. Or even hunting or fishing, in which an individual generally attempts to quickly and decently kill an animal that they will then eat. Torturing a bull for entertainment is unnecessary when compared to these outlets for understanding life and death. Furthermore, majorities in bullfighting states oppose it as well. Recent polls have shown that in Spain 67% are not interested in bullfighting, and in France, 69% of people oppose public funding for bullfighting.(3) | |
Bullfighting is no more harmful than the alternatives for bulls and cows Robert Elms argued in 2010 that "Those who see bullfighting as cruel are, of course, right. It is cruel that man should breed and kill animals for his enjoyment whether as a dinner or a dance. But to my mind the life of an Iberian fighting bull, a thoroughbred animal which lives to a minimum age of four, roaming wild, feasting on Spain's finest pasture, never even seeing a man on foot, is far superior to that of the many thousands of British bulls whose far shorter lives are spent entirely in factory conditions and killed in grim abattoirs so that we can eat beefburgers."(10) Moreover, Bulls are celebrated and honored in bullfighting. In most bullfighting countries, bulls are honored as mystical creatures of immense strength and beauty. Statues of bulls regularly stand outside of bullfighting stadiums, and depict the animals in the most majestic, strong, and beautiful way possible. These statues frequently standalone without an accompanying matador in the depiction.(8) This respect and appreciation of the bull is a demonstration of the decency with which the art form treats the animal. All members of the bullfighting community, fighters and crowds alike, prize quick and relatively painless kills. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8) Therefore there is no compelling moral reason to ban bullfighting, as in many ways it is either no worse or even superior to the other roles assigned to cows and bulls in Western cultures. If anything, the end result (death for human enjoyment) is the same if the animal is eaten or dies in a bullring, but at least in a bullfight the cultural value and artistic expression gives the creature's life and death a poetry and nobility which it will never have in a mechanical slaughterhouse or a butcher's shop. | |
Bullfighting is economically important for some regions "The ban will be economically disastrous for Catalonia, and not just because of direct losses," the head of Spanish bullfighting lobby group Mesa del Toro, Eduardo Martin Penato, told the online edition of daily newspaper Publico in January of 2010. Following the ban in Catalonia, sector representatives could demand as much as 400 million euros in damages in courts to compensate for losses caused by the ban, including to hotels, restaurants and other establishments.(12) A conservative lawmaker in the Catalan parliament noted that this "is enough to build six hospitals, 100 schools or fight against unemployment." Top Spanish matador El Juli said about the Catalonia ban that it "would cause big losses for an important economic sector, which provides a livelihood for many families." The bullfighting sector directly employs about 40,000 people in Spain, according to some sector estimates. International accounting network BDO has also estimated that bullfighting generates about 2.5 billion euros a year for the Spanish economy, drawing 14 million spectators last year.(12) This sort of economic harm would be mirrored across bullfighting nations, as they would also lose out on tourist revenue which brings in vital foreign capital. These benefits to the economies of these (often poor) regions far outweigh any harms to the bulls. | |
Bullfighting is an art-form and an important cultural tradition Ernest Hemingway said about bullfighting that it is "a decadent art in every way [...] if it were permanent it could be one of the major arts."(9) Bullfighting should thus not be understood as simply a 'bloodsport' with some cultural connotations but rather as an inherently cultural art form. The poet Garcia Lorca said in the 1930s that bullfighting is "the last serious thing in the modern world".(10) In many ways the seriousness of watching a life-and-death struggle in the arena is nothing short of poetic and this significance is perceived not only by the audience and the bullfighting community but in the wider culture of the nations which currently permit bullfighting. Robert Elms argued in 2010 that, in nations which do not practice bullfighting, “Our squeamishness means that we prefer death which is mechanical and invisible, while the Spanish understand that it is part of a cycle.[...] It is a public celebration of death (a subject we prefer to hide from in Britain) which, when it is done well, becomes a celebration of life. The man charged with the task of delivering a fine end to this fierce and powerful creature will dance with it along the way, laying his own life on the line to create a swirling symbiosis."(10) Hemmingway echoed this, arguing that bullfighting promoted an understanding of violent death: "The only place where you could see life and death, i. e., violent death now that the wars were over, was in the bull ring and I wanted very much to go to Spain where I could study it. I was trying to learn to write, commencing with the simplest things, and one of the simplest things of all and the most fundamental is violent death."(9) This is why Madrid and other places have protected and recognized bullfighting as an art form, not just a sport.(1) The understanding and cultural value in the bullfighting nations stems from their long history of the practice. Bullfighting traces its roots to prehistoric bull worship and sacrifice. The killing of the sacred bull (tauroctony) is the essential central iconic act of Mithras, which was commemorated in the mithraeum wherever Roman soldiers were stationed. The oldest representation of what seems to be a man facing a bull is on the celtiberian tombstone from Clunia and the cave painting "El toro de hachos", both found in Spain.(8) The continuity of the modern bullfights with these ancient commemorations is shown by the fact that in Spain, many youth idealize bull fighters for their strength, grace, and wit in outmaneuvering bulls.(10) This is valuable in inspiring and compelling success in future generations. Bullfighting is a genuinely popular and enjoyed cultural art form in many nations: Spanish bullrings are not kept alive by tourists. Rather, despite the economic recession which has hit Spain especially hard, the bullfights are still thriving, its top practitioners are huge stars, and its fan are intensely devoted, because it is still the very soul of this dark and complex country. Bullfighting thrives because its local fans are dedicated, and they are dedicated because they perceive its poetry and value to the culture.(10) Thus bullfighting has a cultural value which trumps misplaced concerns regarding 'animal rights', especially as 'animal rights' are simply a concept created by each culture and defined in different ways. Culturally, it is acceptable in the West to eat meat, and so this is legal even though it causes cows to suffer and die. Similarly, the culture of the bullfighting countries places a value upon the bullfight, thus privileging it above the 'rights' of the animal. To allow the moral qualms of other non-bullfighting cultures to dictate cultural practices in Spain or Mexico would be to privilege these other cultures' values above those of bullfighting nations, and deprive them of part of their uniqueness. As Robert Elms argues, if the bullfight dies out due to the pressure of other cultures' moral qualms, bullfighting nations will become "more like everywhere else, dominated by gaudy globalism and neutered by the homogenising forces of technology and accepted taste."(10) | |
There is nothing noble or poetic about the death of a bull in a bullring. The bulls in a standard bullfight are drugged and confused animals, debilitated and run in circles by others who stab them with spears before the matador approaches to make the "kill shot" with his sword. Anyone who believes this fight to be fair is mistaken. By the time a matador approaches to actually kill the bull, the animal typically has enough spears in his neck and back muscles to prevent him from fully lifting his head.(7) By contrast, most nations have laws regulating slaughterhouses to ensure that animals killed for meat endure as little pain as possible. The animal is unaware of 'dignity' or 'poetry', but rather only knows its suffering, and consequently this all that the state should take into consideration, with the logical conclusion being to ban bullfighting to protect the animal. | |
This would certainly make sense if it was expected that the cull would eliminate bovine TB however this is not the case. The estimated reduction in bovine TB cases is expected to only be 16% as a result of a cull of 70% of badgers in an area. [1] This is because only a small proportion of badgers, possibly as low as 6% and at most 30-40%, have bovine TB. [2] Another reason is that other animals, such as deer and foxes, also can pass on bovine TB. [3] Clearly most of the cost in terms of compensation will therefore remain. There may be some small cost savings but these are marginal. [1] Ghosh, Pallab, ‘Badger cull will reduce cattle TB infections slightly’, BBC News, 28 September 2012, [2] Packham, Chris, ‘like Owen Paterson, I had pet badgers. But their real place was in the wild’, theguardian.com, 27 August 2013, [3] Worral, Patrick, ‘FactCheck: the badger cull – what we know and what we don’t know’, Channel 4 News, 27 August 2013, | |
A cull would save on the cost of compensation to farmers A cull would be much cheaper than the cost of compensating farmers for their losses as a result of bovine TB. The cost of the disease to the taxpayer is estimated to be £1billion over the next ten years – mostly as a result of compensation payments for farmers. This cost also damages farmers’ livelihoods as the average cost of a TB breakdown on a farm is £34,000 of which the farmer has to pay £12,000. [1] By contrast the cost of the cull is estimated to be £1000 per square kilometre per year meaning the trials for the culls would cost a total of £2.2million. This then is considerably cheaper than the cost of the disease so will be saving both farmers and taxpayers a considerable cost. [2] [1] ‘Bovine TB (tuberculosis)’, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs,26 March 2013, [2] Agencies, ‘How badger cull policy was reached’, The Telegraph, 27 August 2013, | |
Clearly such actions would be against the law. It has been made clear that even if there were to be a cull the protections that currently exist for badgers would continue to exist as before any cull. For individuals to be taking the matter into their own hands if there is no cull would be illegal and should be punished as such. | |
A cull is needed to prevent bovine TB Bovine TB is a disease that affects cattle. When a herd is infected the animals in question need to be slaughtered to prevent the disease getting into the foodchain. The UK’s Chief vet, Nigel Gibbons argues that the risk of infection of humans will increase if there is no cull. [1] Since the protection of badgers in 1992 there have been increases in the numbers of badgers and at the same time an increase in infections. In 1992 there were only about 800 infected herds but by 2012 that had increased to 9000. Scotland, which has only 10% of the UK’s badgers compared to 25% in the South West of England has very low prevalence of bovine TB. [2] It seems clear that we need to halt the spread of bovine TB to prevent the infection of humans and a badger cull has to be a part of the answer. [1] Bawden, Tom, ‘Chief vet: We need badger cull to prevent spread of TB to humans’, The Independent, 30 May 2013, [2] ‘Bovine tuberculosis statistics and costs’, bovinetb.info, (chart f and j) | |
Some of the costs are largely illusionary. Yes we stop food that is tested positive from bovine TB from getting into the food chain but this ignores that the tests are not accurate so there is likely meat that is infected getting into the foodchain anyway. Bovine TB is mostly in parts of cattle that are not eaten and cooking kills the TB bacterium. At the same time almost all milk is pasteurised so again the bacterium is killed posing no risk to human health. [1] The main difficulty with the argument that a cull will prevent TB is that we do not know which way infections run. Do badgers infect cattle or the other way around. Currently the evidence suggests that it is cattle that infect badgers this is why there are areas with high badger populations without bovine TB problems such as the north of England. It is all but certain that any large jumps in infection over large distances are the result of cattle to cattle transmission. [2] Looking at the chart presented it is clear that the biggest jump from under 2000 to over 5000 infected herds occurs immediately after foot and mouth suggesting the increase was a result of cattle movements. [1] ‘expert reaction to TB test-positive cattle entering the food chain’, Science Media Centre, 1 July 2013, [2] Dawson, D.G., ‘Badgers and TB, where is the science?’, University of Birkbeck, March 2013, (6, 10, 11) | |
If there is no cull farmers will simply carry out their own killing Without a cull farmers will simply take the issue into their own hands in order to protect their herds. If the government will not act on the issue of badgers then farmers will feel they are left with no choice. According to groups that aim to protect badgers there are already an estimated 9,000 badgers killed each year through gassing, poisoning, and baiting. [1] [1] Jenkinson, Stephen, ‘Protect the Badger, Why Bother?’, South Yorkshire Badger Group, | |
A vaccine for cattle does not yet exist in a form where it is possible to tell the difference between a vaccinated cow and a cow infected by bovine TB. This means that vaccinated cattle would have to be treated the same way as infected cattle so would not be salable. Vaccination is not 100% effective and would run the risk of other countries banning exports. [1] Vaccination of badgers on the other hand is costly with the first phase of the welsh trials having amounted to £662 per jab despite the vaccine itself costing much less. [2] [1] ‘Cattle Vaccination’, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 24 January 2013, [2] ‘NFU Cymru slams bovine TB vaccination costs’, NFU Cymru, 29 January 2013, | |
In this instance the question is one of balancing suffering. Yes culling will result in a certain amount of suffering from badgers but not culling and letting TB run rampant causes suffering in cattle. To humans cattle are much more valuable than badgers as we have several uses for their produce. It is clear that if there has to be suffering it should be badgers, not cattle that do so. | |
Culling could increase rather than reduce TB There have been trials of culls of badgers before and they have not been successful. In a randomised badger culling trial in 30 areas of England each measuring 100km2 it was found that “removing badgers by culling was found to disrupt their social organisation, causing remaining badgers to range more widely both inside and around the outside of culled areas.” The result of increased movement was “Proactive culling was associated with a 25% increase in the incidence of cattle TB on neighbouring un-culled land.” [1] Reactive culling can result in even higher increases with the risk of bovine TB more than doubling. [2] Clearly this could be dealt with through a complete cull that would not encourage movement of badgers but as the badger remains protected this is not possible. There are also difficulties with knowing how many badgers there really are because they live underground and only come out a night. Counting by numbers of setts is unreliable when there may be many that are disused or where there are badgers that use more than one sett. [3] [1] Bourne, John, et al., ‘Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB’, Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Pp.19-20 [2] Imperial College London News Release, ‘badger Localised reactive badger culling raises bovine tuberculosis risk, new analysis confirms’, Imperial College London, 13 July 2011, [3] Carrington, Damian, ‘Counting the cost: fears badger cull could worsen bovine TB crisis’, The Guardian, 27 May 2013, | |
A relaxation in cattle controls, not badgers, caused the problem Bovine TB was almost eradicated in the UK yet the number of cases have shot up since the 1990s. The cause however is not badgers. Rather it is the result of BSE and Foot and Mouth disease which resulted in huge numbers of cattle being destroyed. To help the cattle farmers get back on their feet restrictions were all but lifted and cattle were moved all over the country. It is notable that the Isle of Man, which has no badgers, does have bovine TB. [1] John Bourne, who led a trial of badger culling, suggests the cattle movement controls should be tightened before anything as drastic as a cull is undertaken. “The cattle controls in operation at the moment are totally ineffective… It's an absolute nonsense that farmers can move cattle willy-nilly after only two tests. Why won't politicians implement proper cattle movement controls? Because they don't want to upset farmers.” The problem is that the tests are not accurate so herds can pass the tests while they still have the disease so when cattle are moved they infect other herds. [2] [1] Kaminski, Julia, ‘Badger culls don't stop tuberculosis in cattle – the evidence is clear’, theguardian.com, 11 August 2011, [2] Carrington, Damian, ‘Counting the cost: fears badger cull could worsen bovine TB crisis’, The Guardian, 27 May 2013, | |
There are other options to a cull Culling badgers is just one option for reducing the incidence of bovine TB. We are forgetting that the rate of bovine TB is increasing mostly because the UK was very successful at wiping out bovine TB in the past. In the 1930s the national infection rate was around 4 in 10 cattle, this was reduced to less than one in 1000 in the mid-1960s. [1] This was done by removing infected cattle; this is still done today but that it was so successful in the past shows that other methods work. Badgers are not a new species in the UK and would have represented the same risk in the 1960s. Also potentially a better option is vaccination. This can be done either by vaccinating the badgers, or most effectively by vaccinating the cows. Wales has opted to go for a vaccination of badgers, a field study has found that vaccination can result in a 74% reduction in the proportion of wild badgers testing positive for TB. [2] It can also be done comparatively cheaply by using volunteers (the same people who are campaigning against the culls). It will still cost £2000 per km2 (about twice the cull) and it is clear that even if herd immunity is achieved in badgers this won’t immediately stop infections of cattle from badgers but considering the cull is expected over 9 years with only a 16% improvement in infection rates a vaccine would seem to be a good alternative. [3] [1] Rollins, Julian, ‘Badgers: To cull or not to cull’, BBC Countryfile, 8 April 2009, [2] ‘Research into Bovine TB’, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 10 December 2012, [3] ‘Bovine TB vaccination no magic bullet say MPs’, parliament.uk, 5 June 2013, | |
Culling badgers is inhumane The culling of badgers will not be done in a humane way. The intention is that badgers will be shot by trained marksmen but according to the RSPCA “Their anatomy makes it difficult to shoot a free-roaming badger” the result is likely to be large numbers of injured badgers with many escaping “suffer agonizing deaths underground.” [1] As badgers are sentient beings we should be seeking to avoid causing them harm and suffering. [1] RSPCA, ‘RSPCA deeply saddened by start to badger cull’, politics.co.uk, 27 August 2013, | |
As opposition itself has stated we do not know the exact cause of the transmission of bovine TB and the increase in cases. Badgers are almost certain to be one cause if the increase so they must be dealt with. There are already controls on the movement of cattle; they need to have tests first and this has not halted the increase so something else needs to be tried. | |
An area of 100km2 is not particularly large thus making it possible for badgers to be moving into areas where there has been no culling. In a more general cull this would not be possible as the badgers would simply be moving into other areas which have also seen culls. | |
Out of town centres distort urban growth patterns. Because they are not organic growth, out of town centres often warp local infrastructure provision. So, while (for example) they may have good access roads built, there will be fewer amenities built at the same time, and subsequent residential development which follows in the path often grows too quickly to incorporate the sort of planned town infrastructure which developed in more traditional, carefully planned town centre environments. Because out of town centres often do not clearly serve a particular residential area, they distort growth as it means that, rather than responding to a residential area's needs, the centre is built and attracts residential development around it for convenience, regardless of whether this is the most appropriate planning approach for local communities. | |
Out of town centres bring development in their wake. Out of town centres bring development in their wake. As out of town centres are often built on aesthetically unappealing "brownfield" sites, the injection of large investment by a retailer is a vote of confidence in the area and this has a knock-on effect in the local economy. The out of town centre acts as a magnet for further positive development locally. Other amenities and housing will typically start to congregate near the shop and the centre creates a boom for the local economy. This is not only true in the initial construction stages, it will also apply once it is up and running, as retail staff will typically be recruited fairly locally. In Edinburgh, the multi-million development of the out-of-town shopping centre in Livingston is believed to have created more than 1500 jobs alone1. 1 Edwards, G. (2005, July 28). | |
t of town malls do not serve shopper interests well. It is time-consuming for shoppers to visit out of town centres because of their distance from population centres and the tendency for their access roads quickly to become clogged with traffic. This can eradicate any time saving from the convenience of having shops or retail categories clustered in a single geographical location. They also marginalise parts of society. For example, people without access to cars are effectively excluded from actively using them. This especially affects some social groups, e.g. the poor and the elderly. Ultimately, if out of town malls reduce their town centre shopping options, they will have less not more shopping choice. | |
Malls promote competition and serve consumers well Hypermarkets and malls promote competition and so serve consumers well. Because of their huge purchasing power and economies of scale, large retail chains with huge outlets such as Wal-Mart, Tescos and Carrefour can offer products much more cheaply than smaller high-street rivals. The convenience and greater enjoyment offered by out of town malls can also push urban shopping centres into improving their own provision for consumers. This can be seen through improvements in the urban environment, better policing, cheaper parking and more ease of access, and the provision of entertainment and special events (e.g. farmers markets, foreign markets and street festivals) to draw shoppers in from a wider area. The public have voted with their feet, in 2003 48% of everything bought in Britain was bought in out of town stores1. 1 Watkins, M. (2003, June 27). The phenomenon of out of town retailing in the UK. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from AC Nielsen: | |
Out of town retail developments actually reduce effective competition because smaller urban outlets are not able to compete with them on price. In the United States for example, Wal-Mart pays workers the bare minimum and imports goods produced for a lot cheaper overseas1. Local stores cannot compete. After a while the urban shopping centre will become "hollowed out", with most stores shutting and only a few niche retailers or stores catering to poorer and less mobile social groups remaining. Once this competition is removed, the out of town stores can put up their own prices, especially as malls and other out of town retail centres are actively planned to reduce direct competition within particular retail sectors (e.g. only one large food retailer, only one Do-It-Yourself store, only, only a few shoe shops, etc.). 1 Freeman, R. (2003, November 21). Wal-Mart collapses U.S. cities and towns. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Executive Intelligence Review: | |
Out of town shopping malls offer a better shopping experience Out of town malls offer a better shopping experience. It is easier for shoppers to visit an out of town retail development than an urban or town centre shopping area. Typically, out of town malls offer access roads which are not crowded and plenty of "free" car parking. This is welcomed by shoppers and is in contrast to many city centre or high street shopping areas. It is also convenient for shoppers to be able to make their purchases under one roof. In an out of town shopping centre, shoppers are typically able to complete their purchases in one covered mall, and perhaps even in one giant store. This is less time-consuming and less stressful than the more traditional experience of needing to visit multiple different shops. In addition, the interiors of shopping centres are actively managed and so are typically clean, relatively safe and may offer their own entertainment (e.g. skating rinks, cinemas, live music). This is typically less true of more traditional shopping areas, where for example at night poor lighting may be off-putting to some shoppers. As retail outlets in town continue to close, Britain reports growing demand for out-of-town shopping vacancies1. 1 Kollewe, J. (2011, June 14). High street chains snap up spaces in out-of-town shopping parks. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from The Guardian: | |
Out of town shopping centres do not damage local communities, they strengthen them. Shopping is easier, more convenient and more accessible than before, leaving more time for community activities. Furthermore, they act as hubs for community cohesion, teenagers can use the entertainment facilities, parents can shop. Any residential opportunities that arise only 'hollow' the community out for a short period of time, the influx of investment in the area (propelled by the shopping centre's presence) will ensure that the town and the shopping centre gradually close back together. | |
Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres. | |
Out of town malls damage town centres Out of town malls damage town centres. Because the out of town developments are remote from the town centre, shoppers go there without passing the urban shops, which eliminates the opportunistic purchases which form a large part of many small shops' custom. They also damage the sense of community spirit. Out of town centres are typically managed by national firms and house chain shops, whereas the town centre will normally have a larger proportion of locally owned and run shops. Not only does this encourage a net outflow of money from the local community, it also reduces local involvement in the town centre, which can have a negative knock-on effect on civic pride and municipal participation. In Douglas, Arizona shops in the town centre have been forced to close due to a loss in sales to out-of-town centres. According to a 2010 report, over 23% of all spending on groceries was spent outside of the town itself, causing at least one major store in-town to fold and put all its employees out of work1. As such, out of town centres also remove a sense of local diversity. Because out of town centres are typically nationally run from outside the community, they all look alike and are less sensitive to local shoppers' needs. They are more likely to focus on homogenous product and service offerings across their sites. 1 Blaskey, L. (2011, July 13). Safeway to close. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Douglas Dispatch: | |
Out of town centres damage local communities' identities Out of town centres damage local communities' identities. In addition to the damage they do to local trade and civic identification, out of town centres are often far enough out of town that they are not clearly regarded as forming part of the local community. Frequently they lie outside the jurisdiction of the urban council, and so contribute nothing to the local area in taxes. One proposal has suggested using additional taxes on out-of-town retailers to ensure that British high streets can be either maintained or revived1. Furthermore, as out of town centres start to attract residential building nearby, this can "hollow out" the community identity and economic viability of the original town. 1 Travel Weekly. (2011, May 19). Out-of-town retailers 'must fund town centre revival'. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Travel Weekly: | |
Out of town retail developments are bad for the environment Out of town retail developments are bad for the environment. They encourage pollution because they are further from town centres than traditional retail units and encourage the use of cars for fairly short, environmentally harmful journeys. They also frequently involve the destruction of large areas of countryside, not only to accommodate the retail development itself, but also the parking, access roads and secondary development that usually follows. This is made worse by the standard one or two story design of modern malls, which results in wasteful sprawl. Efficient urban development, by contrast, tends to go upwards (or downwards) in multi-storey buildings, often with parking below and apartments above retail space. Friends of the Earth, an environmental lobby, has recently pushed a ban in Northern Ireland on all out-of-town shopping centres, arguing they 'increase consumption and waste and dramatically increase cars on the road'1 1 Friends of the Earth. (2011, June 10). No more out of town shopping centres. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland: | |
Out of town shopping centres represent a sensible, efficient land use. Large-scale shopping does not sit well with residential behaviour. For example, early morning deliveries and late-night shopping can create a lot of noise. In a traditional environment where shops are immediately beside residential areas, this is a nuisance to local residents; this is not the case in out of town sites. Only out of town locations offer the retail industry the space it needs to function. To run an efficient modern shop, large amounts of space with particular planning needs often have to be used. This is often incompatible with densely populated, built-up areas where retail units are largely unable to be altered significantly to meet modern needs. | |
The costs of establishing and administering a cap-and-trade system could be substantial. It demands that a cap be set, monitored, and enforced. This is a highly complicated process, given the size of the energy market, and would demand substantial administrative oversight. Further, should the monitoring not be perfect, given the size and power of the firms involved, it is likely that they will be able to find loopholes in order to deal with the problem. A carbon tax is predictable, as are most simple tax systems. A cap-and-trade system, on the other hand, is subject to market fluctuations, speculation, and volatility. This could have a bad effect on energy prices. Specifically, if the market becomes subject to speculative attack, it would be likely that energy companies would have to offset the risks in the market by raising energy prices. Further, such market volatility could lead to certain energy companies being unduly punished for changes in the market that they simply could not have predicted. [1] [1] “Carbon Markets Create a Muddle.” Financial Times. 26/04/2007 | |
Cap and Trade is More Economical Than a Carbon Tax "The efficiency [of a cap-and-trade system] comes with the "trade" part. Let's say you have two power plants, each emitting 100 tons of carbon per hour. The first can reduce its emissions by 20 tons at a cost of $5 per ton, and the second can reduce its emissions by only 10 tons, at a cost of $30 per ton. Clearly the efficient thing to do is to make the former reduction rather than the latter, with the owner of the second plant paying the owner of the first plant to offset the first owner's extra costs [by buying carbon credits and the "right" to pollute from the first plant]." [1] This technique allows effective emissions reductions to occur at the lowest cost. Hence as this is less disruptive to business they are more likely to be on board and not try to get around a cap and trade system using accounting methods in the same way that they might with a tax. A cap-and-trade system is more flexible in the global economy. Nations that adopt a cap-and-trade system can later link that system into other cap-and-trade systems around the world. It would not be as easy for a carbon tax to achieve this. This is important in today's global economy, where multinational companies exist across borders. As such cap-and-trade is the most viable solution that if implemented could lead to a long term solution and agreement between countries regarding reductions in emissions. [2] [1] Nast Conde, “Why a Cap-And Trade System Beats a Carbon Tax.” Portfolio.com 19/04/2007 [2] Nast Conde, “Why a Cap-And Trade System Beats a Carbon Tax.” Portfolio.com 19/04/2007 | |
A carbon tax essentially considers all carbon emissions harmful to the environment, and warranting of equal punishment so is therefore fairer. A cap-and-trade system only punishes carbon emissions above a certain level, treating only certain kinds of emissions as "bad". A carbon tax, therefore, sends a strong message to polluters that all their emissions are harmful, that they should be phased out, and that they should invest in environmentally-friendly sources of energy. This dramatic message may be particularly important if we view global warming to be a serious crisis. Companies are even willing to pay a premium for the stability provided by this system [I1] ; the premium being the tax itself, and the lack of the potential for profit through the trading of carbon credits. Further as a system that is easy to understand it is easier for directors to allow their firms to ease in to the system. [1] [1] Ugur Akinci, “Carbon Tax Versus Cap And Trade Approaches to Global Warming – Part 1.” Doubletaxes.com 2007 [I1] Examples and case studies required. | |
Cap and Trade is Better at reducing carbon emissions than a carbon tax. A cap-and-trade system provides companies with credits if they are able to reduce their emissions below an established level. They can then sell these credits for a profit. So, if a company takes action to reduce its carbon emissions below the designated level, than it can make a profit. This is a powerful market incentive that is more likely to cause companies to invest money in finding ways to reduce their carbon emissions. A carbon tax, conversely, only provides the incentive of cutting costs, and does not offer this important profit motive. With cap-and-trade emissions are much more likely to be meaningfully reduced, specifically because the cap is static and as such nations can choose to raise and lower it as they wish. Within this mechanism, market prices would simply reflect the availability of credits. As such, nations can guarantee a reduction in carbon emissions just by reducing the number of credits in the market. Finally, because cap and trade affects all companies and minimises cost to them, it provides all companies with an incentive to work toward green technology. Under the status quo, where subsidies and research grants are paid to businesses researching emissions reduction technology, the government has to decide which companies are “best” at solving the ecological damage that industry causes. Other companies feel they don’t have to contribute because they are simply being taxed instead. We do not know where the next development in green technology will come from. As such a smaller impetus for everyone is likely to be better than a large impetus for a small number of companies who might not, in any event, be able to develop workable solutions to emissions problems. [1] [1] Mankiw, Gregory, “Carbon Tax Problem,” 11/04/07 | |
A tax on carbon by comparison to a cap and trade system provides a much more powerful message regarding the importance of carbon policy. Whilst a trade system seems to the general public and to an extent to firms, like simply another product to manage, a tax carries very strong connotations owing the severity of other taxes levied by governments. As such it provides a stronger incentive for firms to change their attitudes toward carbon. Further, a cap and trade system is flawed because often polluters will pollute heavily before the system begins. As the only way to implement cap and trade is to do so based on past emissions (or risk being incredibly unfair), this means that many companies will emit as much as possible so that their baseline emissions will be set highly enough to give them a measure of leeway. Further, a carbon tax system is much easier to change based on the effects of the policy on climate change in the future. Whereas a cap and trade system must deal with changes to the market of cap and trade itself as well, as changes to the overall market. A cap and trade system is more complicated than a centrally imposed tax. Therefore, it will be harder to predict and adjust the behaviour of the credit market in the future. A carbon tax also allows for the redistribution of the taxed money into researching green causes. It leads to a better overall result because money can be focused on companies that have shown progress in this area and taken from those companies that have no intention of changing the field. [1] [1] Shapiro, Robert. “Vs. Cap-Trade.” Carbon Tax Centre. 04/2009 | |
A Cap and Trade system is fairer to producers Carbon emitting energy industries emerged long ago, before anyone thought about the environmental impact of this industry. It is wrong to suddenly consider all energy production that involves carbon emissions a social "harm", after decades of thinking to the contrary. Modern energy producers should not be punished for their participation in an industry whose emergence pre-dates concerns of global warming. Further, A cap-and-trade system is "fair" because it rewards "efficient"-polluters while punishing "non-efficient" polluters: Given the above argument, this is a more reasonable approach to rewarding and punishing an industry whose emergence pre-dates the environmental concerns surrounding carbon emissions. | |
A carbon tax would be more likely to pass on problems to consumers. With the tax being as clear as it is, firms could quite easily appeal to the public and claim that it is the government that is causing them to change prices. Given the inelastic nature of the markets for energy and food, if a number of core companies were to take this action at the same time, then it could simply lead to the government taxing people more for the mistakes and harm that firms cause. Whilst the public bear some measure of responsibility by consuming the firms’ products, the majority of the cost should be borne by the firm. This is especially true in energy markets where it is impossible for consumers to simply avoid using energy altogether. Moreover, businesses are in a better position to control and improve the efficiency of their operations than their customers are. Given that a cap and trade system results in a lower loss for firms it is less likely to be passed on to the people instead. | |
The basic problem is that a carbon tax would be seen as a new tax. New taxes are typically unpopular. This makes it hard for politicians to support a carbon tax, as they are beholden to their constituents, and their likely desires to avoid such a tax. This in itself makes it unlikely a Carbon Tax would ever be implemented. Further, a carbon tax would require complicated enforcement mechanisms. These mechanisms would impose an administrative burden on the state more severe than that created by a cap-and-trade system. In a carbon tax, emitters would pay a tax for every tonne of carbon emitted. This requires that the government know precisely how much carbon is being emitted by energy producers. This is not easy to determine, and requires that a government put in place monitoring mechanisms. Deploying these mechanisms universally would be very complicated, expensive, and require much administration. Then, ensuring that all these monitoring devices operate properly and that all energy producers comply with the tax would also involve a substantial administrative overhead. This would be equally as complicated as a cap-and-trade system, which requires much the same administration, but also encourages other companies to keep tabs on their competitors and their emissions. Credit trading spreads the administrative costs of carbon taxation over a number of companies, all of whom will be acting to protect their carbon credit investments and the stability of the market they are traded on. | |
Carbon Taxes Are More Progressive both Politically and Economically than Cap and Trade Carbon taxes are progressive and help economically marginalised communities to a much greater extent than cap and trade. Currently, affluent businesses, individuals and legal persons usually emit a much larger amount of carbon than poor people. A flat tax on emissions causes a significant amount of money to be redistributed from the rich to the poor. Moreover, the poorest in society are often the first and worst affected by environmental damage. They lack the capital necessary to move out of areas affected by problems such as smog and water pollution. A carbon tax is a particularly useful system of redistributive justice, because money made from taxing firms can then be reinvested into finding greener energy solutions. Specifically this money can be invested in green energy companies that have already shown progress in producing goods that reduce carbon consumption. As such, a carbon tax not only reduces carbon consumption directly, but can also do so indirectly by investing in technology to prevent carbon consumption in the future. [1] [1] Shapiro, Robert. “Vs. Cap-Trade.” Carbon Tax Centre. 04/2009 | |
Cap and Trade will Harm Energy Consumers Carbon trading would harm smaller and start-up business to a significant extent. It is easier for wealthy companies to reduce their carbon consumption as they have a greater level of wealth and thus a greater ability to do so. As such under a market mechanism they would have more credits. Poorer businesses would have to buy carbon credits from the richer ones, compromising competitiveness; in addition, small business parks and areas attractive to start-ups would potentially become sinkholes for pollution under the proposition. The resolution could undermine the efficiency and profitability of small but agile engineering and manufacturing firms, such as the mittelstand businesses that have recently flourished in Germany. The volatility of cap and trade markets means that firms would have to insure against the markets turning against them. In practical terms, this means that following the implementation of a cap and trade scheme firms would have to significantly increase fuel prices in order to hedge against the possibility of the market turning against them and harming their company. As such even if cap and trade is a more “efficient” system it still harms consumers significantly. | |
Cap and Trade is Less Feasible Than a Carbon Tax Carbon taxes are useful owing to the transparency behind them. It helps companies working for green causes gain a strong reputation and support among the public because they are seen to be paying for their pollution. A cap and trade system is significantly more difficult to understand and as such this means that there will likely be less public will behind the system and thus a lesser incentive for transparency. A cap-and-trade system demands that the government determine the emissions baselines for companies, the allocation of carbon credits, and the monitoring and enforcement of all of the above. This is a major administrative burden. A carbon tax would be simpler and require less oversight, and would cost domestic tax payers less. The complexity of a cap-and-trade system would make it easier for companies to cheat. This is largely because the enforcement of this system would be difficult and open to manipulation by skilled lawyers, accountants and consultancy firms. Further, Governments have the incentive to establish conditions favourable to the performance of their own national companies. They can do so by, for example, offering more carbon credits than they should to the companies of their country. The EU's emissions trading system is the primary example of this occurring. [1] [1] Shapiro, Robert. “Vs. Cap-Trade.” Carbon Tax Centre. 04/2009 | |
A "regressive" tax is one that disproportionately burdens poorer groups. The amount of money payable under a regressive tax gets lower as payment taxed increases, or the activity taxed becomes more productive. Energy consumption generally makes up a larger portion of the personal budgets of poorer groups. This is because their budgets are significantly smaller and they tend to purchase a greater deal of perishable goods. Specifically, durable goods such as new sets of cutlery etc. tend not to increase the level of carbon consumption in a household. However, perishable goods such as food often need to be cooked. Companies that are subjected to a flat carbon tax that cannot be offset by carbon credit training are likely to pass on some of their tax liability to consumers in the form of increased prices. As has already been established, the cost of consumables and energy purchases constitute a greater proportion of the income of poorer households. A flat carbon tax, even if levied against businesses and industrial polluters would, inevitably, be paid in part by the poor. Tradable carbon credits, on the other hand, could conceivably result in a net transfer of wealth to the poor. Although the poor spend a bigger proportion of their income on energy, the wealthy consume a far greater amount of carbon in absolute terms. So under a cap-and-trade regime, we would expect the poor (and the energy thrifty) to have excess credits to sell to their more profligate neighbours. [1] [1] Stein, Adam. “Carbon tax vs. carbon market: who would win in a fight?” Terrapass.com 15/08/2006 | |
We agree that speciesism is wrong but we do not think that refusing animals rights is speciesist because there are relevant moral differences between animals and humans. And even if refusing animal rights is speciism, there is nothing wrong with speciesism in the first place. It is natural to value the lives of one's own species more than those of another species because we are programmed that way by evolution. We are expected to care more about our own families than about strangers and similarly to value the lives of our own species more than those of animals. It is only natural and right that if we had to choose between a human baby and a dog being killed we should choose the dog. | |
Speciesism is wrong Just as racism is wrongful discrimination against beings of a different race and sexism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different gender, speciesism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different species. Wrongful discrimination occurs when there is no other reason for the discrimination except the mere fact that the being is of the race, sex, or species that they are. For example, if an employer refuses to employ a black woman over a white woman because she has an inferior qualification this is justified discrimination whereas if he refuses to employ the black woman simply because she is black then this is wrongful discrimination. Human beings are speciesist towards animals because we sacrifice their most important needs for our trivial desires: their life for our enjoyment of a burger. You might think that we are allowed to have special relationships to people that are similar to us but there is a difference between special relationships and being active cruel and discriminatory. Our evolutionary instinct to protect our own species may not be ethically correct in contemporary society. Similarly, we ought not to 'put down' animals who are too expensive to care for. We do not allow human beings to kill off their children when they experience financial difficulty because we believe that human beings value their lives. It would be justifiable to kill off something that has no interest in living, such as a plant, but since we believe that animals do have an interest in living it would be speciesist to kill off a puppy simply because it is not human. We know that society believes animals have an interest in living sometimes because there is outcry when baby seals are clubbed or when elephants are poached for their ivory. Yet at other times we are happy to eat animal flesh and wear leather. This is a contradictory stance. We ought to be consistent in our views and to condemn speciesists. Refusing animals rights is speciesist. Speciesism is wrong. Therefore, it is wrong to deny animals rights. | |
Equality requires that two beings are actually equal on some fundamental level. Human beings have certain essential similarities that make them equal. These do not stretch to animals. Human beings are able to distinguish right from wrong while animals have no notion of ethics. We are thus able to consider what kind of a society we want to live in and we are affected when we feel that there is social degradation. Animals, however, do not have this sense. We have fundamental dignity which animals do not. This is clear in the fact that animals do not experience shame or embarrassment, desire respect, or have a notion of self. Furthermore, human beings can consider their future and have particular desires about how they want their life to play out. These are different for every individual. This is why we are concerned with choice and protecting individualism and religion. Animals on the other hand are concerned only with immediate survival. They have only instincts, not individual desires and wants. For these reasons, we can't consider animals to be equally morally considerable. As for the propositions standard of relevance for the criteria which distinguish animals from humans in any given case, we would argue that the fundamental individuality and humanity of our species is relevant in every case because it makes animal life fundamentally less valuable. | |
Even if we did think that animals were less intelligent than humans beings they should be protected by rights Babies and individuals with learning disabilities may lack intelligence, a sense of justice and the ability to conceive of their future. We ensure that babies and the learning disabled are protected by rights and therefore these factors cannot be criteria by which to exclude a being from the rights system. Therefore, even if animals are not as advanced as human beings they should be protected by rights. An inability to know what's going on might make being experimented on etc even more frightening and damaging for an animal that it may be for a human being. | |
Animals are intrinsically worthy of rights because they are sentient Sentience is the property of being conscious. Sentience brings with it the ability to experience. There is a massive difference in the way that we treat sentient and non-sentient beings instinctively. We see nothing wrong with forming relationships with one’s pets but we tend to deem people with emotional relationships to objects mentally ill. Here we are talking about something more than sentimentality but rather the kind of relationship in which one is concerned with the other party’s emotional wellbeing. We even feel concerned about the wellbeing of sentient beings which whom we do not have a personal connection. For example we may feel upset when we see a dog run over on the road. This would be a very difficult reaction to how we might feel if we see an object crushed by a car. We feel moral outrage at the clubbing of seals. The instinctive way which we differentiate between these two categories relates to the type of value they have. Whilst objects have value because of how they affect us - e.g. they are useful or remind us of a good time or person – we believe that animals have intrinsic value. This means that a sentient being must never be treated as a means rather than an end in and of itself. Animals are sentient. Therefore, animals must not be treated as a means to an end but as intrinsically valuable. | |
First off, you are appealing to instincts which not everyone has. People who work on farms are happy to slaughter animals. A lot of people do not own pets simply because they do not feel any affection towards animals and care more for material objects. Many people do not care about the clubbing of seals. It is human beings of course who perform these clubbing, murder sharks, poach etc. Furthermore, it is irrational that people care about their pets because cows are equally as sentient as animals yet people are happy to eat veal and battery farmed beef and clearly do not care about the cow. People treat pets as property. They buy and sell them, put them down when they contract illnesses that are too expensive to treat, give them away when they move houses etc. These are things that they certainly wouldn’t do to human beings. If you want to argue according to what humans do instinctively then we instinctively value humans more than animals and are happy to eat and kill animals. Furthermore, we do not think that using a descriptive claim- what humans feel instinctively- means that you can then make a prescriptive claim – that all sentient beings deserve equal consideration. In many ways we treat other human beings as only extrinsically valuable. Neo-Malthusians believe we should allow the poor to die of hunger to ensure that the current population does not suffer from the scarcity that arises from overpopulation. Many wars have involved killing lots of people to achieve political aims. Therefore, we often treat humans as extrinsically valuable. | |
We do not analyse human beings on a case by case basis but rather by what distinguishes human beings as a whole, as a species. Infants have the potential to become rational and autonomous etc. The profoundly retarded represent flawed human beings. Retardation is not a human characteristic just as being 3-legged is not a characteristic of a dog though there are both retarded humans and 3-legged dogs. | |
Even if animals are able categorize images in photographs and learn sign language, they are still phenomenally less intelligent than human beings. They will never study philosophy or perform brain surgery or even invent a wheel. Furthermore, intelligence does not prove the ability to self-actualise. Mourning others does not prove that animals value their own lives. Perhaps it implies that animals enjoy company but whether they consider the value of their companion's life and their future potential is questionable. Without the ability to value one's own life, life itself ceases to be intrinsically valuable. The farming of animals does involve death but it is difficult to prove that death is intrinsically a harmful thing. Pain is certainly a harm for the living but animals are farmed are killed very quickly and they are stunned beforehand. Animals on farms do not know that they will be killed so there is no emotional harm caused by the anticipation of death. There is no evidence that the painless killing of animals should carry any moral weight. | |
Animals are equal to human beings. It is true that animals and human beings are different. It is also true that men are different from women and children from adults. Equality does not require beings to be identical. It is true that whilst many people argue women should have the right to abortion, no one argues the same for men because men are unable to have an abortion. It is similarly true that whilst most people believe all human beings have a right to vote, no one argues that animals deserve a right to vote – even those who support animal rights. Equality does not mean that beings all deserve the exact same treatment. It means rather that we consider equally the equal interests of animals and humans. If we deem amount A to be the maximum amount of suffering a person be allowed to endure, then that should apply equally to an animal, though humans and animals may suffer different amounts under different circumstances. The principle of equality advocates equal consideration, so it still allows for different treatment and different rights. Equality is a prescriptive rather than a descriptive concept. What’s important is that beings should ONLY be treated differently where there is a morally relevant difference between them. For example, we can justifiably deny dogs the right to vote because there is a relevant difference in intelligence between dogs and humans. However, there is no justification for battery-farming chickens who have a capacity to suffer. There is evidence that they experience fear, pain and discomfort. Although chickens may be less intelligent and unable to speak , these differences are not morally relevant to whether or not they should be placed in these conditions. We ought to consider animals equally to the way we consider humans. If we were to do so we would give animals rights. We ought therefore to give animals rights. | |
Even if it matters whether or not humans and animals are similar, humans and animals are in fact similar enough that both should be granted rights. We have already noted that beings do not need to be similar in order to be equally morally considerable. Assuming but not conceding that this is false, we will prove that animals are in fact incredibly similar to human beings, so much so that we should grant them rights. First of all, animals have an equal capacity to experience pain. While we are unable to know exactly what other humans or animals are experiencing, we can make inference from what we observe. According to Peter Singer: “Nearly all the signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species...The behavioural signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on”. [1] In addition we know that animals have nervous systems very like ours, which respond physiologically as ours do when the animal is in a circumstance in which we would feel pain—an initial rise of blood pressure, dilated pupils, perspiration, an increased pulse rate, and, if the stimulus continues, a fall in blood pressure. Although human beings have a more developed cerebral cortex than other animals, this part of the brain is concerned with thinking functions rather than basic impulses, emotions, and feelings. These impulses, emotions, and feelings are located in the diencephalon, which is well developed in many other species of animals, especially mammals and birds.” Animals therefore have the capacity for physical and emotional suffering, and so should be granted rights. [1] Singer, Peter. "All Animals are Equal." Ethics for Everyday. (Benatar, D Ed.) McGraw Hill: New York. 2002 | |
We clearly have direct duties to animals if we condemn the clubbing of baby seals and like activities. Furthermore, it is not enough simply to state what duties we do and don't have. There needs to be a reason why we do not have direct duties to animals. What distinguishes them from human beings that might answer this question? We would argue that there is nothing. Animals unlike other 'property' can suffer and feel pain and have an interest in living. | |
We are morally responsible creatures and we can survive perfectly well without being cruel to animals. Animals are different because they need to hunt to survive and are not morally responsible. The interests they satisfy by being cruel to other animals (namely the need to eat) are momentous whereas the human need to wear a fur coat or have a tasty burger instead of a vegetarian pasta dish is trivial. We even use animals for entertainment, something that by definition is unnecessary. | |
Animals are not moral agents It makes no sense to give animals rights because they cannot makes decisions about what is right and wrong and will not try to treat us in an ethical manner in return. Why make them a moral agent by giving them rights? | |
Most rights have no bearing for animals The right to dignity would mean nothing to an animal. Animals are incapable of being humiliated and are not harmed by being reduced to human servitude. A dog is not ashamed of its nudity or having to eat out of a bowl and wear a leash. Animals happily copulate and defecate in front of humans and other animals. What exactly an undignified action might be for an animal it is difficult to say. The right to education, to vote, to fair trial, to be innocent until proven guilty, to privacy, marriage, nationality, religion, property, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, workers rights and shelter all seem impossible to apply to animals. If we specially tailor rights to animals then how is that different to the status quo where we have certain laws protecting animals? | |
Animals have no interests or rationality Some philosophers argue that only beings that are able to make rational choices can have moral rights because the function of rights is to protect choice. Animals are not able to make rational choices because they can only follow instinct, they cannot follow logic. Some philosophers believe that the function of rights is to protect interests. An argument from R.G. Frey argues that animals do not have interests because they do not have language. In order to desire something one must believe that one does not currently have that something and therefore believe that the statement ‘I have x’ is false. One cannot have such a belief unless one knows how language connects to the world. Animals can’t talk so they certainly are unable to know what it is that the sentence ‘I have x’ means in the real world. Therefore animals cannot have desires. Without desires animals cannot have interests. If the function of rights is to protect interests then animal rights serve no purpose. [1] [1] Frey, R,G. "Rights, Interests, Desires and Beliefs." Ethics for Everyday. (Benatar, D Ed.) McGraw Hill: New York. 2002 | |
We only have indirect duties to animals Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant argue that we only have indirect duties towards animals. This means that we may not treat animals in such a manner that our actions are in conflict with our duties towards human beings. A human has no duty towards a dog not to kick it but a human has a duty towards the dog's owner not to damage his property. Pigs and cows are not loved by any human being so we cause no harm when we kill and eat them. Though the farmer may have owned the cow before, the beef becomes our possession when we purchase it. Wild animals are not owned by any human being so we may do to them what we wish. Some people argue that cruelty towards animals can lead to cruelty towards humans but there is no evidence that people who work in slaughterhouses are more violent towards other people. In fact, there seems little connection at all between how people treat animals and humans. A slave driver may adore and pamper his dog but beat and kill his slaves. If we have no direct duties to animals how can we grant them legal protection in the form of rights? The law should only prevent us harming animals when that clearly harms other people. For example, by killing a dog we infringe another person's human right to property. | |
There is no reason why the rights we grant animals need be the same rights that we grant human beings. There may be laws that protect animals but these will be taken more seriously as rights because of the status we give to rights. Furthermore there are several rights that do apply to animals: the right to life, freedom of movement and the right not to be subjected to torture. | |
We are at the top of the animal hierarchy and should treat other animals accordingly in order to further our own species. We have always been superior to animals. Just as a lion can kill antelope and a frog can kill insects, so too human beings have struggled their way to the top of the food chain. Why then can we not exercise the power we have earned? Animals exercise their power and we should do the same. It is our natural obligation to do so. The reason we have always killed animals is because we need them. We need meat to be healthy and we need to test medicines on animals to protect our own race. We use animals to further our own race. This too is surely a natural obligation. | |
If only rational beings should be protected by rights then we should not protect babies or profoundly retarded people; but this is absurd. Animals do make choices according to their preferences e.g. lions choose a mate and dogs choose a spot to lie in the sun One is able to have interests without language because it is easily possible to be aware of a desire and understand that desire even if one does not think of that desire in words. Furthermore, there is some evidence that animals have languages of their own e.g. dolphins, birds.The challenger can also reject either theory of rights in favour of the other. | |
There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable. | |
To worry about animal rights more than human rights is not sensible. When the two are compatible, this is a good thing, but in this case the ban would have the effect of forcing Jews and Muslims to choose between keeping their religion and eating meat. This is a more important concern than animal welfare: although eating meat is not an essential part of life, it is not reasonable to deny it to someone. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.