Paste your essay in here…Grace Le
Professor H. Daehler Hayes
Philosophy 212, Section 8
19 November 2018
Climate Change Issues
Many researchers and scientists believe that climate change is mainly caused by human action which refers to the “greenhouse effect”. The greenhouse effect happens when the layers of atmosphere conserve heat radiating from Earth toward space. Carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, etc are types of gases that keep heat from radiating toward space. Global warming causes water to evaporate quickly. In a result, a high concentration of water vapor leads to global warming. In fact, carbon dioxide is an important factor causing climate change. Although carbon dioxide is released through respiration and volcano eruptions, humans have increased the level of carbon dioxide significantly though human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. According to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), “humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began” (“How is climate changing”). Human actions and other human-made emissions are the main factors causing the natural greenhouse. As automation and high technology era grow, more and more factories and companies are built. Over the last century, burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has significantly increased the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. In a results, global warming will impact the planet and many generations in the long term. For example, according to NASA, the planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 19th century (“How is climate changing”). Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months (“How is climate changing”). Consequentially, the greenhouse impact will warm the oceans and partially melt glaciers, increasing sea level.
In the last twenty years, lobby groups in both sides, either against or for climate change regulations, have spent more the $2 billion in order to change global warming legislation in the US. However, very few companies agree in climate change regulations. Dr. Robert Brulle of Drexel University who conducted the analysis explained that “the vast majority of climate lobbying expenditure came from sectors that would be highly impacted by climate legislation” (“Major polluters spend ten times as much on climate lobbying as green groups, study finds”). In fact, there is a large of amount of money coming from groups that do not agree to tighten the legislations on climate change, specifically carbon emission, such as the electrical utilities sector, fossil fuels companies and transportation. In the last sixteen years, these sectors have been extremely dominant in lobbying by utilizing ten times as much as green firms (“The climate lobby: a sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016”). For example, in 2008, ExxonMobil spent the highest amount (an estimated $29 million) of all firms lobbying on climate change and produces approximately 306 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions (“Research: Who’s Lobbying Congress on Climate Change”, 2016). However, since the majority of lobbying are not done in the public, the government decision-makers can be controlled by the power of money and results in a systematically distorted communication.
In fact, in recent years, there are a growing number of companies supporting the climate change legislations. Companies are attracting their clients on the act. For instance, Tesla insists that owners’ clubs aid in lobbying efforts to protest laws that stop it from selling electric cars directly to buyers in certain states, and Airbnb enlisted hosts for its fierce political fight in New York (“Research: Who’s Lobbying Congress on Climate Change”, 2016).
However, the U.S. cabinet department also gets involved in lobbying against climate change laws. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) who spent the second highest amount of all firms lobbying on climate change in 2008 openly supported “a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, and even left the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over the organization’s vociferous opposition to carbon regulation “ (“Research: Who’s Lobbying Congress on Climate Change”, 2016). In 2014, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its affiliates used more than $90 million lobbying against climate change legislation (“Research: Who’s Lobbying Congress on Climate Change”, 2016). In results, there are also many companies such as Duke Energy that left the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity to support the green legislation and distance their companies from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the industry that disbelieves in global warming (Brendan DeMelle). Companies know that reducing greenhouse gas, especially carbon dioxide, have a high cost. Thus, it will be much more economical to pollute than to reduce their emissions. In 2016, they proposed “a carbon tax starting at $15 per ton that would have been offset with rebates, an approach favored by some conservatives” (“Climate Change and the Elections: Five Takeaways”, 2018). That ballot initiative failed. In addition, in Washington State, “voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have imposed the country’s first tax on carbon dioxide pollution” (“Climate Change and the Elections: Five Takeaways”, 2018). On these two events, oil companies realized that the carbon tax as an extreme harm to their business and corporation, so they spent more than $31 million into the campaign to overthrow the initiatives.
A lot of efforts to address climate change in the Congress are done by Democrats. Eddie Bernice Johnson, the Texas Democrat who is on the list to become chairwoman of the House Science Committee, has pledged to “address the challenge of climate change, starting with acknowledging it is real” (“Climate Change and the Elections: Five Takeaways”, 2018). Nancy Pelosi, who are expected to become speaker, emphasized that “she would revive the select committee on global warming, a panel she initiated the last time Democrats controlled the chamber” (“Climate Change and the Elections: Five Takeaways”, 2018). In addition, the president of the League of Conservation Voters Gene Karpinski also agrees that the government as a whole not just the Democrats should take actions because the climate change issue is getting more complicated and there are many reports and evidences on these issues. Although the Democrats of House of Representatives want to plan a politically viable carbon tax and put climate change is back on the congressional track, it would be failed, sink in the Republican-held Senate, and be denounced by President Trump. Moreover, “after Mr. Trump’s disavowal of the Paris climate agreement, 16 states and Puerto Rico pledged to uphold the accord anyway and keep fighting climate change on their own. They may find new allies now” (“Climate Change and the Elections: Five Takeaways”, 2018). Thus, it is very difficult for any climate change legislations to pass during president Trump time.
Even though science proves that climate change is true, the scientific evidence behind climate change and global warming will never be sufficient to tell humanity what to do. No matter how advanced science can be, science itself would never be adequate. I think that when the government or a group confront environmental challenges, they should take equality and justice into considerations. For example, I have demonstrated that a carbon tax is failed in the congressional trial and many companies lobby against climate change legislation. The companies and government do not take equality and justice into account. As everybody has a right to live and deserves a clean living environment, the government and companies should treat people equally. They should have a responsibility to recover or at least mitigate the carbon emissions they have had done; similarly, islands and coastal areas close to sea level have to deal with the fact that the impact of climate change leads to increase the strength of hurricanes, storms, and typhoons. People who live there will have to suffer the aftermath. It make these areas vulnerable through no fault of their own. If many legislations like carbon continues to fail, people in the middle or bottom of society will have to bear the huge costs and social risks while the wealthy top continues to increase carbon emissions and benefit most from accumulating carbon into the atmosphere. In fact, ethics have autonomy as one of the most important factor. Some people may argue that climate change legislations conflict with the presupposition of ethics since autonomy allows these companies act on their freedom and their choice while future descendants are dependent on what the antecedents have done in the past. If climate change laws are put on these companies, their autonomy is violated. However, I think that these legislations cannot be reduced to a specific ethics fundamentals; they should make us think about how we should deal with these problems in a deeper view. In fact, these law can draw upon the conventional values and principles of ethics. Thus, climate change issues allow us to reconsider about human dignity of indigenous people, our responsibility and accountability, our view on minors.
I think that John Rawls's original points can also be elaborated and complemented with climate change issues. In John Rawls's A Theory of Justice the original position is a central , “justice as fairness,” set forth in. It is designed to be a fair and impartial point of view that is to be adopted in our reasoning about fundamental principles of justice