In order to answer this question, I will use two different perspectives of ethics: the consequentialist perspective, and the deontological perspective.
Consequentialism argues that the morality of an action lies with its consequences. This means that an action with bad consequences is an immoral action, and vice versa. In this case, killing the last remaining Redwood would not have any negative consequence on any being in the world, as no one benefits from it anymore. This means that the act is not immoral.
A deontological perspective states that there are principles that should be taken as rules, and which govern what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, rules and duties are central. For example, a principle might state that "all life is valuable." As the Redwood falls under the definition of life, killing it would be considered an immoral action.
I believe the answer is: D. none of the above
Urban sprawl refers to the expansion of population from high density area to the low density area.
When this happen, deforestation will increase to provide the population with space to build houses, pollution would increase to the the increase in automobiles, and loss of natural resources would occur because the increasing numbers of consumers.
The blazing hot sand in the Sahara desert
The answer to your question is A
