same for this one. Using the utilitarian approach to environmental ethics, we evaluate actions based on how much pain or suffering they cause sentient beings (Sandler, 2018). In the case of habitat destruction, this means we must consider how animals are affected, particularly those capable of experiencing pain. When forests, wetlands, or rivers are disturbed or destroyed, animals can suffer from displacement, starvation, injury, and death. From a utilitarian standpoint, if the destruction of a habitat causes widespread suffering among wildlife, then the action is morally wrong because it increases harm rather than minimizing it. The Enbridge vs. Bad River case is a real-world example of this. The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa has fought to remove Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline from their reservation, arguing that the aging pipeline poses a serious risk of rupture. If the pipeline were to leak, it could severely damage the surrounding wetlands and waterways, home to countless sentient creatures like fish, birds, and mammals. These animals would suffer from contaminated water, loss of habitat, and disrupted ecosystems. From a utilitarian perspective, continuing to operate the pipeline despite this risk is morally irresponsible because it disregards the significant suffering that could result to humans and countless sentient animals who rely on that environment to survive. While utilitarianism doesn't recognize the value of non-sentient life or ecosystems, it still off