pollution's a problem...and baxter's a jerk

I understand Baxter's point about trade-offs between pollution and resource use...but, the fact that the trade-off is strictly focused upon what humans are experiencing and what aspects of the environment directly benefit or harm us is a narrow and obviously anthropocentric view-point I have many problems with.
Firstly, his criteria for his "human organization" problem-solving tactics are selfish (see #2), species biased (see #3), and nearing the line of tragedy of commons situations (see #4), although he claims to avoid this with redistribution. Also, it's great he is able to throw his view out there ("my observations about environmental problems will be people-oriented, as are my criteria" [pg. 520]), but his support for this "attitude" is not so great. To say that no massive destruction of plants and animals would occur since there is human dependence upon them (leading to preservation) is basically a lie. Look at all of the species that have disappeared, are endangered, or threatened because of us. And to what degree of our reliance is enough for proper preservation? Is fauna and flora not directly relied upon not worthy of existence?
In addition, his claim that what is good for humans is basically good for other living creatures too is weak. And what is his definition of "good", the basic elements required to live? Even when looking at just humans...what's good for an infant and what's good for an adult are not always the same. He is making unfounded generalizations.
Another one I have a problem with is his notion that "agricultural use of DDT must stop at once because it is harmful to penguins" (pg. 521) is an extreme assertion. Doesn't he realize how narrow-sighted he sounds? Firstly, penguins are not the only species experiencing the ill effects of DDT; and secondly, their situation can serve as an example of what various effects could occur with multiple life-forms...if it can harm them, why not humans too? It'd be in our interest to turn to a safer product.
For his fifth argument (for his "attitude") he inquires the amount each type of species would count if included in our social organization and if/how people will be their proxies, for "self-appointment does not seem workable to [him]" (pg. 521). Well, Baxter seemed to have no trouble at all in appointing the human race to speak for and make choices affecting all of these species.
Baxter's rejection of the proposition" 'to preserve the environment' unless the reason for doing so...is the benefit of man" (pg. 521) seems odd on account of our environment is where we live, what we rely on for survival. Is he secretly aware of another planet currently full of endless resources for us? How does keeping this planet healthy not benefit mankind?
To his issue with the lowering levels of pollution (bottom of pg. 521)...it will not necessarily lead to lower levels of food, shelter, education, and music...but perhaps different variations of these means (and others) of human satisfaction. He loves painting as drastic a picture as the extreme conservationists.
Lastly, is the cost of putting in labor, and skill, and money, and time into one project (pollution control) and not being able to use those resources in another type ("building hospitals, fishing rods, schools, electric can openers"). He should also consider the costs that accumulate when not controlling pollution such as various medical expenses, deaths, filtering/cleaning smaller and smaller (and increasingly more expensive) amounts of water, and increased land-use, fertilizers, and farm equipment required for degraded farm lands to keep producing goods.