22
B.W. Flemming
3.3
Discussion and Conclusions
In the case of Europipe the most rational solution ultimately became unviable because
moral standards and ethical principles were either knowingly or unwittingly violated
in the course of the presentation, discussion, communication, and daily reporting on
the issue along the whole way. When Rachel Carson (1962) called for an urgent need to
end the practice of "false assurances and sugar coating of unpalatable facts", she was
referring to the manner in which the chemical industry manipulated public opinion at
the time. Her rational, scientifically well-founded and pragmatic approach to the problem in 1962 ultimately bore positive fruits in that the same industry that originally left
nothing untried to discredit her has today integrated environmental concerns into its
strategic planning (Lindsay 1997). The pendulum, however, seems to have unfortunately
swung to the opposite extreme, as the same deplorable practices of discreditation are
now being applied in reverse under the guise of environmental concern and protection. This development is undermining the true and justified cause of the environmental movement. It subverts recent progress made towards environmental awareness in
industry, and promotes an anti-environmental backlash which can ultimately only do
more damage (e.g. Rowell 1996).
By knowingly submitting to the deceptive arguments and unsupported claims of
radical environmentalists, political decision makers must accept a large share of the
blame for the implementation of inferior solutions. Although in some cases problems of
this kind can be alleviated by the skilful use of conflict psychology in mediating between
opposing parties (Donner 1997; Endresen 1997), this approach is inevitably doomed to
failure if compromise solutions are rejected because of radical fundamentalist attitudes.
There is an urgent need for the return to rational discourse based on ethical principles and moral standards by everyone involved in or concerned with the issue at hand.
Only then will similar confrontations and conflicts, in which the environment is the
inevitable loser, be avoided in the future. Environmental ethics must become a matter
of the highest priority (see Kinne 1997). Since the existential needs of both man and
nature are at stake, the development of integrated and sustainable solutions for the
resolution of environmental conflicts is overdue (Brenner 1997; Dahle 1997; Dreiblatt
and von Schweinichen 1997; Rochert and Wells 1997). Ultimately, man has no choice
but to find ways to co-exist with nature without destroying it, or face doom. As aptly
stated by Vollmer and Delafontaine (1997), " ... the time for conflict is long passe.Actually, it lasted much too long .. :'.
The most desirable solution would be a globally accepted code of environmental
ethics and conduct, coupled with guidelines for environmentally sound practices to be
applied and respected by everyone concerned. Constructive suggestions to this effect
have been made in a set of recommendations which emanated from the "First International Symposium on Large-Scale Constructions in Coastal Environments" (see Recominendations this Vol.).
References
Attfield R (1983) The ethics of environmental concern. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Brenner A (1996) Okologie-Ethik.Reclam,Leipzig
B.W. Flemming
3.3
Discussion and Conclusions
In the case of Europipe the most rational solution ultimately became unviable because
moral standards and ethical principles were either knowingly or unwittingly violated
in the course of the presentation, discussion, communication, and daily reporting on
the issue along the whole way. When Rachel Carson (1962) called for an urgent need to
end the practice of "false assurances and sugar coating of unpalatable facts", she was
referring to the manner in which the chemical industry manipulated public opinion at
the time. Her rational, scientifically well-founded and pragmatic approach to the problem in 1962 ultimately bore positive fruits in that the same industry that originally left
nothing untried to discredit her has today integrated environmental concerns into its
strategic planning (Lindsay 1997). The pendulum, however, seems to have unfortunately
swung to the opposite extreme, as the same deplorable practices of discreditation are
now being applied in reverse under the guise of environmental concern and protection. This development is undermining the true and justified cause of the environmental movement. It subverts recent progress made towards environmental awareness in
industry, and promotes an anti-environmental backlash which can ultimately only do
more damage (e.g. Rowell 1996).
By knowingly submitting to the deceptive arguments and unsupported claims of
radical environmentalists, political decision makers must accept a large share of the
blame for the implementation of inferior solutions. Although in some cases problems of
this kind can be alleviated by the skilful use of conflict psychology in mediating between
opposing parties (Donner 1997; Endresen 1997), this approach is inevitably doomed to
failure if compromise solutions are rejected because of radical fundamentalist attitudes.
There is an urgent need for the return to rational discourse based on ethical principles and moral standards by everyone involved in or concerned with the issue at hand.
Only then will similar confrontations and conflicts, in which the environment is the
inevitable loser, be avoided in the future. Environmental ethics must become a matter
of the highest priority (see Kinne 1997). Since the existential needs of both man and
nature are at stake, the development of integrated and sustainable solutions for the
resolution of environmental conflicts is overdue (Brenner 1997; Dahle 1997; Dreiblatt
and von Schweinichen 1997; Rochert and Wells 1997). Ultimately, man has no choice
but to find ways to co-exist with nature without destroying it, or face doom. As aptly
stated by Vollmer and Delafontaine (1997), " ... the time for conflict is long passe.Actually, it lasted much too long .. :'.
The most desirable solution would be a globally accepted code of environmental
ethics and conduct, coupled with guidelines for environmentally sound practices to be
applied and respected by everyone concerned. Constructive suggestions to this effect
have been made in a set of recommendations which emanated from the "First International Symposium on Large-Scale Constructions in Coastal Environments" (see Recominendations this Vol.).
References
Attfield R (1983) The ethics of environmental concern. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Brenner A (1996) Okologie-Ethik.Reclam,Leipzig