Coal as a source of economic growth versus the adverse nature of burning coal

In Ohio, the environmental ethics dilemma could be seen as the end result of a clash between two views. The clash occurs as the deliberate distortion of coal as a source of economic growth and prosperity collides with empirical facts shared by the scientific community about the adverse nature of burning coal. Through means of assessing both views from a consequentialist ethical standpoint, we could form a conclusion about the legitimacy of each view’s claims; hence, we can decide which view is ethically superior, in other words, which view is efficient from an environmental standpoint.

The first view is mainly shared by the coalmining and electricity generation industries. Advocates of this standpoint base their agendas primarily on the need to represent coal as a tool of prosperity and economic growth. However, the coalmining industries repeatedly fail to produce any statistical facts to support their claims; instead, they depend primarily on bravado-deceiving forms of propaganda. For instance, in their ad the economy comeback, coal advocates portrayed the U.S. economic condition as a fighting ring, in which an American flag was shown in the background (American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, 2011)ACCCE. Concurrently, several people from multiple ethnicities, were shown knocked down on the floor. The narration began as the referee started to count, and the anchor went on to announce “Our economy, our work force, we have all been taking big hits, but this is America” (ACCE, 2011). Suddenly, movements of those knocked down occurred as the announcer said “but this is America”. Unexpectedly, all participants started to energetically bounce around showing a desire to fight. Simultaneously, the announcer went on to say:

“...

... middle of paper ...

...licit time in this view is long term impacts from the business as usual case. Rather than focusing on short term gains, this view is devoted towards incorporating efforts to preserve the ecosystem as well as the wellbeing of future generations. The theory of authority in this view is based on a deep moral belief that good and bad consequences of any set of actions has to be identified and addressed in a way that prohibits the bad consequences from taking place. The theory of change here is emanated from the need to present the true cost of coal to the public. This in turn will allow the public to start to assess the business as usual case from an entirely different angle – consequentialist approach. Finally the theory of agency will come in place in forms of policy recommendations that will provide stability and true overall prosperity to the State of Ohio.