Using Paul Taylor's environmental reasoning and his examples of mediating disputes between human and non$-$human environmental actors, which of the following does not make sense when applied to the wetland replacement policy known as No Net Loss? Proportionality: the construction of new housing in drained wetland environments is necessary to deal with a critical affordable housing shortage, so long as new wetlands of equivalent size are constructed elsewhere. Minimum harm: wetlands that are selected for clearing and replacement, in order to expand agricultural areas for human food production, are assessed to ensure that their biodiversity is relatively low $.$ Restitutive and distributive justice : by definition, No Net Loss policy requires that a wetland that is removed be replaced by a wetland of equivalent acreage $,$ so that the overall wetland acreage does not decrease. Self$-$defense: all wetland environments can be permanently drained for the purpose of protecting nearby landowners and their family members from disease carrying vectors like Anopheles mosquitos or potentially dangerous animals like Copperhead.