ENVIRONMENTAL DILEMMAShttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006020912568 (adapted)

Nuclear energy

Clean, cheap, almost no greenhouse gas emissions, little environmental damage, at least in the short run. BUT…Potentially major problems can arise if the material isn’t stored properly. And it has to be stored for thousands of years. Sooner or later people will be exposed to nuclear fallout.And what if a terrorist attack, an earthquake and/or a tsunami just happen? So do we use nuclear power to combat the environmental problems caused by global warming and leave the problem to future generations? Or do we leave them the problems of atmospheric pollution caused by fossil fuels?

GM foods.

These are basically plants and animals that have had genes from other species spliced into them to make them grow better. So tomatoes might have genes form arctic fish spliced in so they don’t freeze on cold nights, or cotton might have a gene from a bacterium spliced in so that the cotton plant produces a poison that kills any insect eating it. Using this technology is great because it means that we don’t have to use chemicals to kill insects; we don’t need to use as much fertiliser which washes off and poisons rivers and we can grow more food on less land, so we don’t need t cut down forests to make cropland. That’s great for the environment. Unfortunately these plants can produce seeds, and they can spread. If no animal in the world can eat our poisonous cotton plant what will stop it taking over the world and making a lot of other plants and animals extinct? Moreover, can scientists be that certain that there are no side effects to the human health?

So should we use these foods because we know they are good for the environment now? Or should we refuse to use them because they could cause environmental and/or health problems tomorrow?

Development vs. degradation.

Extreme poverty must be eradicated. Standards of living must be raised, especially in developing countries. This can only be achieved by development, and that means money. An example of development might be cutting down a forest, which makes no money for anyone, and planting crops, which can be sold to make money. Another example would be to build more factories which would create employment which in turn would boost purchasing power so more cars, for instance, would be made and sold.

But cutting down a forest causes environmental problems like global warming and soil erosion. And building factories also adds to global warming and causes other pollution problems.

So should people be forced to live in poverty forever to avoid the environmental problems?

Increased life expectancy. Most environmental problems can ultimately be attributed to overpopulation. With modern technology we now grow so much food that people don’t starve and medicine has eliminated a lot of disease. As a result the world’s population has exploded. So what do we do? Let people in the developing world starve to death to limit environmental damage? Even that isn’t a solution because in the long term the fewer children die the fewer children people have. The only ultimate solution to overpopulation is making sure people DON’T die. But in the meantime we cause major problems.

Pick one of these dilemmas and discuss it in your group.Follow the rules: CONCISENESS (speak for 15 seconds only) – LISTENING (wait 3 seconds before you start) – REFLECTING (repeat out loud something of what the person before has said)Make a list/table with:Main viewpoints –> WHAT (supporting arguments) + WHO defended themConclusion(s) (consensus is not needed)