Conceptions of Justice and the Environment
Background Context
In his article entitled “Cosmopolitan Justice, Responsibility, and Global Climate Change,” author
Simon Caney observes the issue of global climate change and the release of greenhouse gases. Climate
change has become a significant issue of discussion within recent generations, and closely connected to
this theme is the idea of justice. As defined by Merriam Webster, justice is “The maintenance or
administration of what is just, especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the
assignment of merited rewards or punishments” (Webster 68). As this quote demonstrates, the notion of
justice often implies that someone is to be held accountable for one's past actions, as well as their adverse
effects on others. It is for this reason that Caney describes three common manners that are utilized to
review this concept.
Firstly, Caney promotes that it is common, even in general daily situations, to cast the responsibility of one’s actions on the person or entity that causes harm to others. This is often known as the “polluter pays principle” (Caney 752). However, despite its attractiveness in nature, this viewpoint does have some deficiencies. For example, if one were to consider people or organizations that are no longer existent, there would be no reasonable way to get these individuals to pay. Additionally, there may be situations in which those who were existent or even part of the entity committing the harm were not in agreement or did not, themselves, take any specific action that led to a quantifiable amount of harm. How would it be possible for one to take actions to mediate for damage that cannot even be linked to him or her?
Secondly, Caney speaks to the idea of their being a “collectivist approach” to the problem of pollution and greenhouse gases being spread into the atmosphere. This line of thinking certifies that harm can be traced back to a specific collective of individuals who could be held accountable for the damage. For instance, Britain industrialized throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, and thus, a large amount of pollution and greenhouse gases was produced. As this harm can be traced directly back to this collective (the nation), then this country should be the entity that faces the consequences in order to right its wrongs (Caney 753). Just as the more individualist perspective, placing the consequence on the actions of a nation’s past risks not only blaming current individuals for actions that were committed by others, but potentially, blaming those who are not themselves guilty of such an offense, or even in favor of it.
Thirdly, Caney describes how another view pertaining to pollution and climate change would be to cast the responsibility of modern-day polluters on the actions of past individuals. As such, it would be necessary for those committing harmful environmental actions today to “pay the price” for other actions that were done by distinct people (and collectives) in the past (Caney 760). However, while this may be tempting to many, this practice has the profound potential to run contrary to the very concept of “justice,” as those today are being forced to take action (and being punished) for events that occurred before their existence that they took no part in.
Blog Question Response
With this background being provided, it is my personal belief that we do have duties to protect future people from environmental policies that are being enacted today. This is because, oftentimes, it is customary to view climate policies as something that will only affect our future generations. As Parfit has claimed, it cannot clearly be denoted that seemingly “harmful” policies of today are actually having a negative effect on future generations (112). This is due to the fact that policies of today affect the population profoundly, and therefore, have influence on when people are conceived. It is for this reason that those alive in the future, barring the sim chance that a disability makes life not worth living, cannot correctly say that they have been harmed by such actions. However, this viewpoint, while very valid and sensical, does not directly take into consideration those who are alive today.
Actions that are taken today do have the potential to cause great harm, as it often does not take them until the next generation to do so. For example, in Flint, Michigan, policies taken primarily by governmental organizations (cost-cutting measures) resulted in the pollution of most of the region’s drinking water (Fonger 3). In California and Portland, Oregon, air outdoors has been considered by many to be among the most polluted worldwide (Wade and Freitas 2). Most of these occurrences are not the result of policies that were established long ago, but rather, due to lack of action that happened around the same year as the tragedy itself. When one views the issue of climate change not as something that will only affect future generations, but also, as an issue of severe consequence to current generations that the conclusion becomes clear: we do have duties to protect those in future generations from its effects.
While it can be debated whether or not our future generations will actually be benefitted by the adverse effects of our actions, it is quite evident that the present generation will be. As a result, there is the potential that people who are affected by climate catastrophes in the same generation are severely affected. As such, this would prevent the conception of young in this very generation, as their parents would be prevented from conceiving them. In turn, this could result in certain segments of the next generation from actually being born in the first place. This, of course, would harm such individuals, meaning that our climate decisions do have the potential to adversely affect future generations.
Finally, it is necessary to describe what is meant when I claim that “we” have a responsibility to help those in future generations by protecting them from the negative effects of climate change. When I say “we,” I more generally mean that everyone in society has the responsibility to voice their opinions about the climate change policies that are being placed into effect. This must be done such that the most awareness possible is raised in order to avoid such policies from being employed. However, when it comes to who directly should take responsibility for the harm being committed for such events, it should only be those who are directly linked to the phenomenon itself. For example, if someone was to commit harm to the environment, this person (and potentially those who helped him/her to accomplish this) would be held accountable, and should be required to do as much as possible to correct such actions (while full restoration may not be an option in that particular instance). If there is an event that happened in the past and no existing entity or person has contributed to its realization, then those who exist today should come together to take action. Nevertheless, it could easily be seen as contrary to the concept of justice if these individuals were forced to make right an action they themselves did not commit, or necessarily benefit from.
It is evident that we must protect future generations from the adverse effects of climate change. While future generations, as Parfit puts it, may not be directly affected by the actions of those taken today, they surely can be if such events harm the present generation. This would interfere with the ability for one to be conceived and born later on, the very reason why Parfit argues that harm would not be done to those in the future based on our choices today. Lastly, while all should be responsible for spreading the news surrounding the dangers of climate change and pollution, only those directly involved in it should face repercussions or punishment. If others had to deal with such consequences, this could be viewed as contrary to the notion of justice itself.
Works Cited
Caney, Simon. “Cosmopolitan Justice, Responsibility, and Global Climate Change: Leiden Journal of International Law.” Cambridge Core, Cambridge University Press, 9 Jan. 2006, www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/cosmopolitan-justice-responsibility-and-global-climate-change/BD126B5ED00DD9469FEB07BBB195F004.
Fonger, Ron. “Judge Refuses to Dismiss EPA from Federal Flint Water Crisis Lawsuit.” Mlive, 26 Aug. 2020, www.mlive.com/news/flint/2020/08/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-epa-from-federal-flint-water-crisis-lawsuit.html.
Parfit, Derek. “Energy Policy and the Further Future.” Find in a Library with WorldCat, 1981, www.worldcat.org/title/energy-policy-and-the-further-future/oclc/8572675.
Socrates: What Is Justice? (An Extremely Surface Level ... 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThKZRtjx20I.
Wade, Will, and Gerson Freitas. “Portland Has World's Worst Air and U.S. Declares an Emergency.”
Comments
Post a Comment