Because of the climate crisis, many people have been advocating for the expansion of nuclear energy, which produces significantly less greenhouse gas emissions than current sources. The major issue of nuclear energy is the nuclear waste that is produced, being highly radioactive and remaining so for thousands of years. The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository was created 100 miles away from Las Vegas to store up to 70,000 tons of nuclear waste, but is inoperable due to concerns from citizens and stakeholders from Nevada not wanting to bear the burden of nuclear waste when they do not benefit from nuclear energy.

Humankind is now able to do something they were unable to: reduce the suffering of animals in the wild. Many have argued that, because humanity is able to end wild animal suffering, we should when there aren’t significant consequences. Humanity should do its best to make its impact on animals positive. Critics worry that this may disrupt complex ecosystems or meddle with the natural order. Others argue we should focus on ending the suffering humanity is responsible for, or that the task is so large it would be impossible to achieve.

Many animal products that can be found today in stores come from a factory farm, which are industrial scale farming facilities that process large amounts of animals in a condensed area. These factory farms allow for cheap and widely available meat products across the United States, bringing necessary nutrients to American diets. However, factory farming has many negative costs, such as pollution, poor working conditions, and negative health effects to consumers.

Traveling can bring about great memories, but what most are starting to realize is that those memories come with a huge contribution to climate change. On each trip planes emit an unhealthy amount of greenhouse gases. Although, if one person decided to quit using planes and that way of travel, that would not stop the planes from taking flight everyday. Is there any point in stopping? Do the benefits outweigh the negatives?

Kayla, an environmental ethics teacher, has just been asked to be the adviser of an environmental club due to her perceived envolvement with preaching on how to make the world a better place. Although, Kayla's personal life is an exact opposite of what she teaches in the classroom. She feels like a fraud taking this position, but figures that being able to convince others to change their ways holds more weight than what she allows herself to do. Should Kayla come clean and still decide to advise the club? Is she making the right decision by saying nothing and agreeing?

Xi does not eat meat because of its link to the suffering and death of animals. But she isn't sure if she can still wear animal products, like wool and leather, ethically. What if they are second-hand? What if they are environmentally responsible than their alternatives?

In 2015, Ann Arbor, MI implemented a deer cull in an effort to reduce car accidents, mitigate damage to local flora, and to stop the spread of chronic wasting disease. Those who oppose the cull argue that these are not important enough to merit the cost of the cull or the killing of innocent animals. When, if ever, do benefits to humans outweigh harms to non-human animals like deer? Is culling the most humane way to address overpopulation?