Case study:

The aroma of Tacoma:

1. If the Tacoma community chooses to keep the smelter open, should the EPA go along? What if the community chooses to close the smelter? Are their choices Free? Yes, the EPA should go along the community. It is because they have consented on it. Much of their livelihood is dependent on this only particular thing. If the EPA doesnt go with their decision, they have an obligation to provide them with such an alternative which is equal to the amount of benefits it provides. If the community chooses to close smelter, then the EPA has a responsibility to think and examine critically and work on the utilitarian principal, thus analyzing the total costs and total benefits of smelter and take actions accordingly. The major problem is that any decision is NOT FREE. Each of them carries huge costs and benefits with it. Thus before taking any decision, it is very important investigate and question every single possibility.

2. What do you think the Tacoma community should choose? Why? What would you choose? I think Tacoma community should choose to keep the smelter open. It is beneficial for them because according to cost benefit analysis, it shows that the economy gains $20 million. The first and foremost argument of opposition would be that isnt there any value of a persons life? The reply in favor of my choice is that according to me 570 lives are more important to me than a single life that has disease of lung cancer. I would choose smelter to keep open because it not only benefits the economic life of many people but also benefits the social life of many families. The economic benefit may not suppress the life of a person who CAN have lung disease because of it but the social welfare of 570 families suppresses that one life for sure. I would choose the same because of all the reasons presented and discussed above.

Case study 2:

THE AUTO COMPANIES IN CHINA

1) Is it wrong for the car companies to help china expand its auto industry?

2) The car companies are helping China because they want to reap the benefits of untapped market and an increasing demand without realizing the harms it will cause. Will not it affect the economy if they dont make cars for the people who demand it? The companies obviously cannot leave the demands unseen because it will affect the economy very badly. 3) The companies should find the alternatives to meet those demands, for e.g. they can invest that money in R&D to make such a car which produces less or no pollution. In this way they can engage in social welfare by helping to reduce or eliminate pollution, along with making profits by introducing a car with new feature of being an environmental friendly car.

4) For e.g. they can find out how can a car operate on solar energy thus helping to stop the scarce resource of oil from depleting.

5) Still less than five people in 1,000 own a car. In 2007, Chinese drivers bought 8.5 million vehicles (5.5 million cars, minivans and SUVs and 3 million commercial vehicles). Sales should grow by 1 million vehicles annually until 2015. The Chinese government is actively developing a car culture and car industry. The main car making cities are Shanghai, Tianjin and Guangzhou. The annual auto show in Shenzhen draws a lot of interest.

6) Chinese automakers lack solid financial markets because the market is as fragmented as there are so many car makers and the market is dominated by foreign brands. As of 2009, foreign car companies held 85 percent of the Chinese car market. Nearly all the cars produced in China are made for domestic consumption. China is already the largest automobile market in the world. No car company can afford to overlook its Chinese brand.

Case study 3

Exporting poison:
Does an American company like Velsicol have an obligation to refrain from selling pesticides that are banned in US to developing nations where they are not banned?

Stopping Poison Exports although over 300 national and international environmental, labor, consumer, farm and religious groups are hailing the effort, new attempts at pesticide export reform legislation in the U.S. Congress will fail to stop the "circle of poison." The insidious trade scenario entails the export of pesticides banned or severely restricted in the United States to developing countries. A loophole in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the federal law regulating pesticides, permits the production and export of a pesticide even if its use is restricted or banned in the United States.

Does an American company like velsicol have an obligation to refrain from exporting chemicals that are only suspected of causing cancer?
The intensity and the probability should be taken into account and checked & verified in the cost benefit analysis as well. To prove common law medical monitoring claim under Louisiana law (there is a

separate statutory claim), a plaintiff must show: (1) Significant exposure to a proven hazardous substance. (2) As a proximate result of this exposure, plaintiff suffers a significantly increased risk of contracting a serious latent disease. (3) Plaintiff's risk of contracting a serious latent disease is greater than the chances of members of the public at large of developing the disease (4) A monitoring procedure exists that makes the early detection of the disease possible. (6) The prescribed monitoring regime is different from that normally recommended in the absence of exposure.

Whose responsibility is it to ensure citizens of developing nations are not harmed by exports of pesticides?
A number of governments and organizations have expressed concern about the propriety of supplying pesticides to countries which do not have infrastructures to register pesticides and thereby to ensure their safe and effective use. It is at the same time important for industrially developed countries to recognize, in their regulatory activities concerning residues, the pest control needs of developing countries, particularly the needs of countries in tropical regions.In the absence of an effective pesticide registration process and of a governmental infrastructure for

controlling the availability of pesticides, some countries importing must heavily rely on the pesticide industry to promote the safe and proper distribution and use of pesticides.
Case study 4

Gas or Grouse
Q#1: What are the systemic, corporate, and individual issues rose in this case? Systemic Issues
Seeing the fact that Questar drilling has benefited the local economies as well as increasing welfare, there are also concerns about the endangered sage grouse and other wildlife population in the surrounding area. In addition, with the rising need of clean energy, the natural gas drilling has also become very important.

Corporate Issues
The issues rising within Questar is how the company should be able to meet the demand of the natural gas without having to be sued over some environmental matters. Moreover, as the drilling operations are forced to stop, next to the rising costs, there would be more lay-offs, of which would damage the employees trust and thus creating more problems.

Individual Issues
Jim Smith, a former communications director for President George W.Bush Energy Task Force, tried to lobby the Bush administration to keep the grouse off the endangered species list, encouraged "grass-roots opposition" to "provide political cover", and suggested "funding scientific studies" to show the bird was not endangered. Once in office, he attacked Clinton-era proposals to create national monuments and tried to open 58 million acres Clinton had closed to road building, logging and drilling.

Q#2: How should wildlife species like grouse or deer be valued, and how should that be balanced against the economic interests of a company like Questar?
Ans: It is extremely difficult to put on wildlife species into monetary valuation. Some of available research even mentioned that one of the ways of valuating the wildlife species is to

count on the effort made on the conservation. The higher the conservation cost is, the higher is the monetary value. There is an environmental balance needs to be concerned as well.

Q#3: In light of The US economys dependence on oil, and in the light of environmental impact of Questars drilling operations, is Questar morally obligated to cease its drilling operations on the Pinedale Mesa?
Basically, Questar is morally obliged, but it is definitely not the only one having the obligation. The Questar company should continue their innovation for drilling, so the environment and animal around Questar can be survive and have a chance to breath.

Q#4: What, if anything, should Questar be doing differently?

From begining they should consider the solution of the impact for environment and animals arround Questar.

Q#5: In your views, have the environmental interest group behave ethically?
Ans: Although the environmental interest group is fighting over for the sake of the environment, they do not fully ethically behave. By asking the company to stop drilling in the winter, it would cause the cost leap for the company as well as the lay-offs of workers that need to be considered. They cannot simply weigh for one side without thinking over the result of action in the other side.