As young children, most of us are exposed to a concept of justice when we are taught to clean up our own mess. This life-lesson is straightforward and obvious, even for children. However, the concept becomes more complicated and critical when we look at issues, or “messes”, like climate change.
Changes in our climate will disproportionately affect the health and well-being of the most vulnerable of humanity, regardless of the country they live in. The most vulnerable are always the most impoverished, and often also include the elderly, children, the disabled and the chronically ill. Climate scientists are certain that this climate change – or abnormal rate of overall global warming – is directly related to human activities (Resnik 1).
The United States is one of the top three emitters of greenhouse gases worldwide (Friedrich et al.). The United States must be involved formulating solutions, and I believe this will require a new prioritization of fundamental values. We must ignite our responsibility to our neighbors, to the poor, to future generations, and to strangers we will never meet. It may also require looking at the natural world as a living home, rather than a commodity to be consumed. It may indeed require examining what each individual covets for a “good life”. Fortunately, there are established precedents for these morals and ethics that we may draw upon. There are three general populations that are uniquely positioned to effect these value changes in the United States. They are positioned to exemplify and explain principles of justice, without which, I fear there is little hope for change.
Climate Change and Health
Scientific consensus indicates that the ramifications could be catastrophic for life on earth if we do not clean up our planet and atmosphere. These consequences have direct effects on human health and security. The threats to health include heat waves, flooding, rising sea levels, worsening storm patterns, pollution, and infectious disease distribution. The World Health Organization reported that 23% of all deaths worldwide in 2012 were due to environmental factors influenced by climate change (Watts 1). If these factors increase over time, particularly non-linearly as has been predicted (Jamieson 431), the potential for human harm extending far into future generations is staggering. These harms are more pronounced for populations of people living in poverty as they are the least able to adapt to environmental disasters (Levy and Patz 311). Many of the poorer countries that contributed the least to the problem will be affected the most. The justice issues are broad and far-reaching.
Climate Change and Justice
First, let us look at some of the distributive justice issues raised by climate change and its effects. In general, the economically well-off tend to be the highest emitters of greenhouse gases while the poorest tend to be the lowest. We also have to take into account that some of the impoverished may have emissions that allow for basic survival, while many of the rich may be emitting more than their fair share for luxury-level living (foreign travel, large homes, numerous cars, etc.) We also have at least some responsibility to future generations, because, if predictions are correct, there may be a runaway greenhouse effect as time passes. This means that our actions now may have exponential effects on people who are yet to be born.
If healthy environmental conditions are a necessary condition to permit people to reach their full potential, then we can see how the disproportionate effects of climate change create violations of the principles of distributive justice (Caney 749). If everyone were allowed to choose, we might all choose to live the most comfortable lifestyle of the most affluent in the United States. But, with only our present technologies, we cannot all live in this manner, and still keep our planet habitable for all.
Second, there is intense debate over procedural justice regarding climate change. How do we decide who is responsible for addressing and mitigating these effects? For example, many have called for the “polluter pays” approach (Walker 46), and this may include a tally of the historical accumulation of emissions in total, current emissions, or both. We are forced to ask if people alive now in developed nations are responsible for the practices of their ancestors. Until relatively recently, these predecessors may have had varying degrees of ignorance regarding the consequences of their development. It would be difficult to argue that a fifth generation family member of a coal miner in England is to be blamed for the environmental degradation of the miner. The polluter pays approach may also be unfair for a nation with a history of high emissions that has remained impoverished. There is only so much we can ask of a population of people who are struggling to survive (Caney 763).
Climate Change, Values and Responsibility
The changes in attitude and action necessary to combat climate change will take a monumental change in values and accountability in the United States. Religious leaders, parents, and bioethicists are three groups of people that have inherent responsibilities to exert their influence on the moral fabric of our society.
In the United States, religious leaders have long held positions of influence and power within our society. These leaders can wield considerable influence to begin to change the dialogue around climate change. A core value of the major religions in the United States is care for the poor. This is a natural segue to climate change, as the effects, as noted previously, will be most severe for that population. There are also opportunities to modify outdated religious values, such as attitudes around population control, that may no longer further the idea of a good life for all of humankind.
There is precedent for religious organizations taking action regarding climate change. Wardekker et al. notes that in 2006, a group called the Evangelical Climate Initiative called upon the Bush administration to urgently address climate change, and its effects on the poor (512). In 2015, Pope Frances wrote the encyclical letter “Laudato Sí,” where he states, “The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a complex system linked to many of the essential conditions for human life.” If this is true, then humanity must consider the justice of the current distribution of this good, and ensure an equal share for all.
Three categories of general Christian themes that address humanity’s relationship with nature have been put forward. One of these, conservational stewardship, seems best suited to begin to address the issue as it promotes the values of preserving creation and care for the poor (Wardekker 515). Referring to St. Francis within the previously mentioned encyclical, Pope Francis writes,”He shows us just how inseparable the bond is between concern for nature, justice for the poor, commitment to society, and interior peace.” This interrelatedness is a fundamental concept that has been particularly difficult to instill in the United States, with its prioritization of autonomy and independence. We are generally a nation of consumers and capitalists. We all feel we are owed a chance at a better life, which tends toward material wealth. The conversation needs to evolve toward a life of better values.
Religions may also hold some responsibility toward the growth of climate change. Most religions support directives aimed at prioritizing life. Our global population is projected to grow by at least 30% by 2050 (Machalaba et al. 447). In a world already stressed by environmental degradation, an enlarging population no longer makes sense. Climate change threatens the living as well as those yet to be born. Until there are solutions around environmental stabilization, discouraging birth control seems outdated at best. Methods that prevent conception (e.g. condom use) would allow for people to control their family size and timing of births, with secondary benefits like infection control, without destroying a perceived life at conception. Encouraging large families is simply irresponsible as these additional resources could be put to use to assist the poor. It is past time to have these conversations.
Another group with special responsibilities toward climate change are parents. One of the controversies when discussing mitigating climate change is the effect on our future generations. Ethicists have put forth a “non-identity” problem in the case of the yet-to-be-born (Meyer Section 1) that might allow some to feel we are theoretically “off the hook”. However, I argue that this theoretical exercise can be emotionally bypassed by focusing on the more intimate relationship that parents may have to their own future progeny. People have difficulty with limiting their own lifestyle to benefit a future stranger in another country (Jamieson 434), but may be persuaded to envision the lives of their own grand-children. The responsibility of parents is compounded by the fact they have decided to have children in the first place, as each birth creates another consumer, or emitter, with effects to mitigate. I do not suggest that everyone should stop having children. Rather, I suggest that family sizes can be limited to replacement births only which would hopefully stabilize, or reduce, population more gradually.
Parents are the primary source of values for their children. The lessons they teach and the example of they live, will be their legacy. Our children will only have to look backward in time to know who to blame for inaction on climate change.
Finally, bioethicists need to enlarge, encourage and engage in these dialogues. For too long bioethicists have been selectively involved in medical ethics, to the exclusion of all the other biological and ecological sciences (Resnik 1). We now have a colossal ethical problem that will affect the health and well-being of humans for generations to come. No profession is better positioned to mediate discussions between people of different faiths, specialties, cultures and politics. Perhaps bioethicists even have communication skills that can translate the science and values into a public discourse that is understandable and sympathetic.
Conclusion
Humanity is currently faced with what may be one of the most serious threats to ongoing health and well-being. Climate change will continue to effect the most vulnerable people of our planet, and there is a possibility these changes will become exponential over time. The United States is a principle source of green house gases and has the assets to make changes. We can be a leader in mitigation, or we can further saddle future generations with our apathy. While there are many who hold responsibility and many who can help lead the way, religious leaders, parents and bioethicists have special roles to play.
To change the way the citizens of our nation view our responsibilities around climate change, and promote values that encourage behavior changes will be difficult. We need to change our ideas around poverty, population growth, consumption and what a good life means. We need to better understand the interconnectedness of the life on our planet. Fortunately, the tenets of most major US religions, the duty of parents towards their children, and the moral imperative of bioethicists to engage create several areas of focus. Let us be the people that prevent global catastrophe and live up to the morals and ethics that we profess. We have no time to lose.