One site near Moab, Utah contains 12 million tons of dirt, toxic chemicals, and other radioactive waste. This pile covers over 130 acres. The material sits on bare ground. Astoundingly, this radioactive material is located on the banks of the Colorado River! Waste material is seeping into the ground water. A major flood could wash the material into the river. This event would contaminate the water. The consequences of this natural event would be frightful. The Colorado River supplies drinking water to over 25 million people downstream. Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles would be affected. (Associated Press, 2005).
The Energy Department assumed control of the site in 2001. The previous owner, Atlas Corporation, filed for bankruptcy when it realized the high cost of remediation. While a legal solution for Atlas Corporation, simply “walking away” from the contamination they caused violates all sense of land ethics. Shifting the burden of remediation to taxpayer’s supports Dillingham’s “argument from temporal location” position. Fortunately, the Energy Department proposes to move the contaminated material to an environmentally safe location. If the removal of material can be accomplished quickly, it will be a victory for environmentalists. It will be a more significant victory for future generations. The ecological systems at risk will be preserved. The soil, waterways, fish, plants, and animals that depend on a clean Colorado River will still flourish.
What would be the effect of a major flood before remediation of the site? Ecosystems would be disrupted for hundreds of miles. Many ecological systems would be contaminated. Each ecological system is part of a larger system. These ecosystems have intrinsic value. There exists an interdependence of humans, wildlife, the land, and water. Polluting one system will affect other systems dependent on that system. Contamination of a macro-system like the Colorado River would cause temporal reverberations for many generations. Large quantities of radioactive waste introduced into the river during a major flood would invade many ecological systems. The water, soil, fish and plants would be corrupted. Water now used for human consumption and irrigation could not be used. Recreational activities would be sharply curtailed.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment board concludes “"Human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted”. If an environmental disaster were allowed to occur at the Moab, Utah site a “dead zone” could result. The long half-life of uranium radioactivity is measured in the 1,000’s of years. The entire Colorado River could become a waste-land. Even the Pacific Ocean where the Colorado empties would be affected. By ignoring the responsibility to land ethics substantial and irreversible loss to ecological systems has occurred. A flood would create a significantly greater loss. Imagine the city of Phoenix becoming uninhabitable as a potential result.
“Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable time in human history” concludes the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. This change has not been all positive. In fact the increase of human population has over-exploited or polluted over two thirds of the ecological systems on which life depends. These consequences are expected to grow significantly worse over the next 50 years. Newton and Dillingham (2001) suggest the population of the Earth may increase by 1 billion people by 2020 to over 7 billion people. This will create new stresses to ecological systems.
The continued increase in world population, especially in China and India, demands humans develop a consistent environmental sensitivity. Once ecological systems are lost the damage increases exponentially. There is also a financial incentive to adhering to an ethical approach to ecological systems.
“Ecosystems and the services they provide are financially significant. To degrade and damage them is tantamount to economic suicide," said Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Program. The cost of remediation of polluted sites is far greater than preventing contamination. Both the “argument from ignorance” and the “argument from temporal location” should be discarded. Humans cannot ignore the needs, wants, and rights of future generations. Providing for a healthy environment to be enjoyed and cared for by future inhabitants of this planet is ethically astute. The irresponsibility of unethical treatment of the ecological systems can reverberate through many future generations. Human beings are the only species with the capability to destroy our environment. Much damage has already been done. A high priority must be given to repairing damage caused to ecological systems. Prevention of additional damage is paramount to avoid potential irreversible harm. If there is to be an environmentally sustainable future humans must create and adhere to sound ethical practices towards ecological systems. The carnage needs to stop. Humans created the environmental ‘time bomb” that exists at Moab, Utah. Thousands of other potential and current problems exist also. An enormous level of commitment of resources, intelligence, and integrity will be required to solve these problems. Newton and Dillingham ask: “Are we still capable of achieving such a level”? The future of all ecological systems, the entire planetary environment, demands it.
References
Associated Press (2005). Concern over radioactive waste near Colorado River. Retrieved April 7, 2005 from
Des Jardins, J. (2001). Environmental ethics: An introduction to environmental philosophy. (3rd ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Newton L. H., & Dillingham, C. K. (2002). Watersheds 3: Ten cases in environmental ethics. (3d ed.) Belmont, CA:Wadsworth
Retrieved April 8, 2005 from
Reuters (2005). Report: Earths ecosystem at risk. Retrieved April 8, 2005 from