9.7 Ethics of Waste
209
dismiss the two perspectives outright but implies that they easily slide into moralism
and idealism modes, where nature becomes sacred and environmentalism a duty.
They also espouse voluntarism whereby “environmentally conscious” behavior
becomes a voluntary decision. Hawkins argues that such political and interpretative
strategies could result in resentment, whereby people feel that an ecological duty is
being imposed on them, and immobility, whereby people develop a sense of resigned
despair that nature is destroyed beyond repair.
Contrastingly, Hawkins (2006) seeks to explore the various ways of analysis and
understanding rubbish at the daily level of material and social practice. She explores
varying ways of constructing and forging a waste politics that is non-reliant on
transcendence ideas on guilt-tripping, moralism, or conscious raising. As she states,
“My concern is with our most quotidian relations with waste, what they mean and
how they might change” (Hawkins 2006, p. 3). This is the basis to her approach
as she seeks to examine waste in a phenomenological rather than ecological way;
despite doing so for politically confronting the environmental repercussions of
overconsumption. Consequently, she deals with the pressing ecological realities of
waste. Hawkins believes that the way we interact with waste often expresses specific
ethics. The chapter on “Plastic Bags” suggests that capitalism, through commodity
culture, has produced an ethos of disposability and waste habits.
There are two core ethical concerns regarding waste management. The first
concern is about the attainment of “intergenerational equity” by selecting strategies
and technologies that reduce the risk burdens as well as resources passed to the
future generations by today’s generation that produce waste. It is factual that every
generation leaves burdens and benefits, and that the current decisions we make could
foreclose alternatives or open better horizons for our future. This cannot be avoided,
but our behaviors and decisions could become more acceptable so that appropriate
equity levels are respected and we do not restrict future generations’ freedom
of choice. For example, in the case of producing nuclear energy and managing
radioactive wastes, there is a need to carefully scrutinize the balance between
benefits enjoyed by generations and the liabilities that could be imposed by current
generations on future generations. The objective is to manage wastes in a manner
that impacts the future at an acceptable level both in terms of safety and ethics.
The second concern is the attainment of “intragenerational equity” and especially
an ethical approach to the management of resource allocation as well as public
participation in the process of decision-making (Okereke 2006). Intragenerational
equity mainly deals with equity between people of the same generation.
Intragenerational equity is in tandem with the Brundtland’s Commission that
played a critical role in popularizing sustainable development by defining it as “the
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs.” Subsequently, the report produced
by the Commission in 1987 about Our Common Future was endorsed by the United
Nation and its definition adopted by countries globally (Okereke 2006). Equity is
derived from social justice and represents a notion that there are basic needs that
need to be fulfilled, and policies need to be directed with justice, fairness, and impartiality towards these ends. Waste is among the environmental inequities that exist
209
dismiss the two perspectives outright but implies that they easily slide into moralism
and idealism modes, where nature becomes sacred and environmentalism a duty.
They also espouse voluntarism whereby “environmentally conscious” behavior
becomes a voluntary decision. Hawkins argues that such political and interpretative
strategies could result in resentment, whereby people feel that an ecological duty is
being imposed on them, and immobility, whereby people develop a sense of resigned
despair that nature is destroyed beyond repair.
Contrastingly, Hawkins (2006) seeks to explore the various ways of analysis and
understanding rubbish at the daily level of material and social practice. She explores
varying ways of constructing and forging a waste politics that is non-reliant on
transcendence ideas on guilt-tripping, moralism, or conscious raising. As she states,
“My concern is with our most quotidian relations with waste, what they mean and
how they might change” (Hawkins 2006, p. 3). This is the basis to her approach
as she seeks to examine waste in a phenomenological rather than ecological way;
despite doing so for politically confronting the environmental repercussions of
overconsumption. Consequently, she deals with the pressing ecological realities of
waste. Hawkins believes that the way we interact with waste often expresses specific
ethics. The chapter on “Plastic Bags” suggests that capitalism, through commodity
culture, has produced an ethos of disposability and waste habits.
There are two core ethical concerns regarding waste management. The first
concern is about the attainment of “intergenerational equity” by selecting strategies
and technologies that reduce the risk burdens as well as resources passed to the
future generations by today’s generation that produce waste. It is factual that every
generation leaves burdens and benefits, and that the current decisions we make could
foreclose alternatives or open better horizons for our future. This cannot be avoided,
but our behaviors and decisions could become more acceptable so that appropriate
equity levels are respected and we do not restrict future generations’ freedom
of choice. For example, in the case of producing nuclear energy and managing
radioactive wastes, there is a need to carefully scrutinize the balance between
benefits enjoyed by generations and the liabilities that could be imposed by current
generations on future generations. The objective is to manage wastes in a manner
that impacts the future at an acceptable level both in terms of safety and ethics.
The second concern is the attainment of “intragenerational equity” and especially
an ethical approach to the management of resource allocation as well as public
participation in the process of decision-making (Okereke 2006). Intragenerational
equity mainly deals with equity between people of the same generation.
Intragenerational equity is in tandem with the Brundtland’s Commission that
played a critical role in popularizing sustainable development by defining it as “the
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs.” Subsequently, the report produced
by the Commission in 1987 about Our Common Future was endorsed by the United
Nation and its definition adopted by countries globally (Okereke 2006). Equity is
derived from social justice and represents a notion that there are basic needs that
need to be fulfilled, and policies need to be directed with justice, fairness, and impartiality towards these ends. Waste is among the environmental inequities that exist