Exam 8: Seth Mayer and Dan Shahar, “Environmental Regulation”

In his essay, Shahar affirms that industrial growth has had a number of effects on the human community. Which of the following is NOT one of those effects?

In his essay, Seth Mayer discusses the relationship between the law and citizens of a democracy. He believes that this forms part of a solution to the climate change problem. Mayer affirms: Even when rules are somewhat economically inefficient, they can manifest public attitudes and commitments about which actions and interactions are acceptable. Law, particularly democratically legitimate law, can represent the perspective of the public at large-deeming some actions morally acceptable and others out of bounds. It is an attempt to coordinate social action to further public purposes. Begin your essay by describing the relationship between law and public attitudes, as Mayer understands it. Then, give a non-environmental example that further helps to illustrate Mayer's point. Finally, consider: what are the liabilities of using the law to accomplish Mayer's environmental goals? Are they significant enough to show that the law shouldn't be used for those ends? Why or why not?

In his reply, Shahar defends a particular approach for responding to climate change. What is it?

Mayer and Shahar agree with each other on a number of things. Which of the following is NOT an area of agreement?

In his essay, Shahar argues that reforms should be pursued with what goal in mind?

In his essay, Mayer discusses two market-based policies that respond to climate change in detail. What are they?

In his essay, Shahar discusses a key work in the climate change literature. What is it?

According to Dan Shahar, the negative effects of climate change: …have significance beyond their ramifications for human interests: our obligation not to ransack the planet goes beyond our duties to ourselves. Yet, even if we look solely at our own desires, I think we will see that we do not want to let nature's treasures fall by the wayside when we still have the opportunity to preserve them. The second point here is about human desires. But the first isn't. If our "obligation not to ransack the planet goes beyond our duties to ourselves," then to whom-or to what-might we have that obligation? Does it make sense to say that we have obligations to (some or all of the many) nonhuman parts of the world? Why or why not?

In his reply, Mayer states: "The core question is whether growth is desirable, not when and how we should use law to shape economic activities in light of climate change."

Seth Mayer begins his reply by saying, "Our agreements show that the left and the right have an opportunity to work together on this issue, rather than taking a complacent, business-as-usual approach." In your essay, discuss some of the similarities between Mayer's and Dan Shahar's approaches to the environmental regulation question. Then, discuss at least one major difference. Based on this analysis, what do you think will pose the greatest challenge to Shahar's affirmation that "the left and the right have an opportunity to work together on this issue?"

In his essay, Mayer offers an argument that evades moral and political questions.

In his reply, Shahar offers what as an example of something that is good when done in moderation, but bad when done too often?

In his essay, Mayer suggests that environmental regulation leads to a number of effects. Which of the following is NOT one of those effects?