Inconvenient truths and agricultural emissions

Abstract

The near-universal scope of sustainable development and climate change inevitably brings ethical dilemmas. A means to address an environmental problem in one area may conflict with policy goals in a different field. How should we handle conflicting ethical values or principles in pursuit of these key objectives? This paper examines two such ethical dilemmas which arise out of Ann Bruce’s study on reducing methane and nitrous emissions from ruminant livestock to help to lower overall greenhouse gas emissions, which have a wider significance than agriculture. Firstly, her findings suggest that among the most effective measures to reduce livestock emissions may be to move further towards intensive production systems. This conflicts with key ethical goals in sustainable development, adopting more extensive production and maintaining biodiversity. Does climate change therefore provide a higher ethical value, requiring the reassessment of some ‘sacred cows’ of environmental ethics? A similar case has arisen with proposals to increase nuclear power to reduce fossil fuel emissions from electricity generation. The paper considers how we should prioritise environmental principles in the real world, and how far ethical principles can be compromised in the light of their adverse impacts.