In this class, Environmental Ethics, we have looked at a number of issues affecting the environment which are caused by humanity in its relations with the planet and other life on it. We have conducted discussions and utilized readings which were assigned to us on various topics regarding the environment. Our main focus has revolved around the topic of climate change; the causes and possible solutions. However, we have discussed fewer solutions and more the problem of determining the ethics of our current situation. What has brought us here and what we are doing to affect the planet for future generations? It is a given that the planet IS getting warmer. According to data collected at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center, Earth's surface temeratures have risen at an average rate of 0.15°F per decade since 1901, just after the start of the industrial revolution. The effects of industrial emmissions worldwide is apparent, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Since the late 1970s, however, the United States has warmed faster than the global rate." The cause and effect relationship of human consumption and the release of damaging emmissions into our atmosphere can be clearly seen. Obviously, humans are the cause of this recent planetary temperature spike. We are selfishly driving consumption, creating demands and then refusing to pay the bill for things we have already consumed. What's worse, this careless and utterly selfish attitude is targeted directly at the earth and her resources. Our industry is driven by corporations whose hands are drenched in the filth of their actions against humanity and the earth in order to rape and plunder her assets. Obviously, these ...
... middle of paper ...
...://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/index.html>.
Extance, Andy. "Artificial tree becomes carbon castle." - environmentalresearchweb. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. .
Gardiner, Stephen Mark. A perfect moral storm: the ethical tragedy of climate change. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print
Jensen, Derrick. "Pacifism (part two)." Endgame. Seven Stories Press 1st ed. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2006. Print.
"Projections of Future Changes in Climate." - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2013. .
"U.S. and Global Temperature." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 7 Dec. 2013. .
Cases have been widely used in medical ethics and law. In both fields, numerous books and articles about cases have appeared, including book-length catalogs of cases. I argue that pluralistic casuistry provides an adequate approach to environmental ethics. It retains the strengths while avoiding the weaknesses of the other approaches. Importantly, it resolves some broader theoretical issues and provides a clear, explicit methodology for education and praxis.
Will this century mark the decline of society? Is the future safe from the mistakes of mankind? In “Learning How to Die in the Anthropocene”, Roy Scranton suggests that the question we should be asking ourselves about global warming is not whether it exists or how it can be stopped, but rather how are we going to deal with it. The purpose of the article is to convince everyone that current life is unsustainable, and that nothing can be done to reverse the process; we must acknowledge that the future will be drastically different and plan in advance if civilization is to keep moving forward. Dr. Scranton develops a realistic tone that relies on logos, pathos, and ethos appeals to persuade readers of his claim. Scranton sufficiently backs up
The two essays by Michael Pollan and Curtis white talk about climate change in regards to the relationship between the environment and human beings. Although the two essays share the same topic, they take the subject and engage the readers in totally different points of views. Pollan’s essay talks about global and ecological responsibility being a personal virtue while Curtis discusses the socio-economic or political issues underlying sustainability (Pollan; White). These two essays are very different in terms of voice; however these pieces of writing are both important for people all over the world to read. Climate change and environmental disasters are a real issue. Just this year, there have been more storms, cyclones, earthquakes and typhoons all over the world. One cannot look at the state of many developing counties where the majority of the population is exposed and vulnerable to the effects of climate change. This issue on developing a viable solution for the problem of anthropogenic gases and global warming is long from being found. Not only this, many people do not want to hear about this issue since they do not think it is real. Unless people have tangible proof that their cars, thermostats and aerosol cans are contributing to climate change, they are not going to give up their lifestyles. By synthesizing the two essays, one can see that there is a need for change and that it is not an issue which should be dealt with in terms of ecological factors or even personal virtue. The social, economic and political factors affecting this problem and the move towards real sustainability should also be a topic that will raise awareness.
The Earth’s climate is changing as a result of human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Do we, as individuals, have a moral responsibility to change our emissions-behaviour, so as to prevent current or future harm from anthropocentric climate change? For instance, suppose we go driving for fun on a beautiful Sunday afternoon in a gas-guzzling vehicle (Sinnott-Armstrong 333). In this case, have we caused any harm with regard to its effect on climate change? In “It’s Not My Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations,” Walter Sinnott-Armstrong argues that such an action is completely harmless and that most or all common individual actions are too causally insignificant to make any difference regarding climate change (Sinnott-Armstrong
In the article “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math”, written by Bill Mckibben, he firstly opens up by saying that back in 2012, according to the statistics, we surpassed the global record high for climate temperature in our nation, destroying other previous records. Despite the research and the displaying of data, nobody is doing anything to adress the following issue. Mckibben outlines three distinctive numbers that outline the following issue., 2 degrees celsius, 565 gigations, and 2795 gigtons, which he uses to validitate and support his argument. Firstly, the ongoing problem of climate change in society is fundamentally a matter of individual moral responsibility that is inspired by the insight individuals are intentionally harming the environment. Secondly there is yet to be an effective collective state response to the issue of global warming, despite approaching two full decades of ongoing and reoccuring negotiations and the very near universal participation by states in the UNFCCC. Thirdly, because this issue has been put on hold for longer than it was innitially expected, greenhouse gases are being emitted into our atmosphere, polluting our environment. The South-North issue and an ongoing debate comes into effect as all the greenhouse gases that are created and used in the Northern hemisphere are being emmited into the southern hemisphere. Hence, my thesis is; despite the fact that global warming and climate change has been an ongoing problem globally for years, humanity has failed to resolve thiis issue as it quickly begins to escalate.
...i, X., . . . Johnson, C. A. (Eds.). (2001). Climate change 2001: The scientific basis : contribution of Working Group I to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
One pivotal point regarding the debate on environmental ethics and the course humans should take is regarding future generations. How do the actions we take today impact those who inherit this planet after us? Some people argue that we do not inherit this world from our parents, but rather borrow it from our future children. Regarding the text Sustainability and Responsibility to the Future, several different viewpoints are offered regarding both sides of the ethics of environmentalism.
Scranton believes that human beings are killing present life by ignoring the effects of global warming on the world. He continues to warn the reader that change is coming regardless of what people do now and that they human race must prepare for what is inevitably coming, as it will be the collapse of global civilization as it is known. Scranton states that this time we are living in, the anthropocene, presents humans with multiple challenges but mostly, “what it means to be human” (page 234). How to control the inevitable
The first part of this essay discusses what the human species has done to deal with the problem of climate change. While some improvements have been made, the problem has not been addressed aggressively enough to stop the damage. What is amazing about this is the denial of so many people that problems exist. If they do realize the risks, they are simply not taking actions to contain the damage.
Thesis statement: The global warming and the resultant climatic change is due to uncontrolled human exploitation of earth and its resources thereby emitting large volumes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Other ethical questions such as “How should we- all living today evaluate the well-being of the future generations” (Brome). Scientific data shows that Global climate change will have some lasting effects on the planet, ecosystems and humans. There are many “risks associated with climate change such as the risk of pathogen, and disease” this will affect future generations, and animals this is why we should reduce our emissions of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere (Crank and Jacoby). “The consequences of heightening greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere appear after a time lag, often decades or more” (Somerville). Even though the current generations are “benefiting from cheap use of burning fossil fuels, and using the atmosphere as a free dump for our waste products” all humans are obligated to find a cleaner way to live so we don’t set future humans up for failure (Somerville). Somerville also explains that within us burning these fossil fuels, and ignoring the consequences “we sentence our children and grandchildren to cope with the resulting climate change” (Somerville). Also we need to take action to prevent further damage of Earth’s climate not only for the future children of the world but other species that we share the planet with. In the article “The Ethics of Climate Change” by John Broome he states that the answer to this ethical question can be easy one without the need of a sophisticated philosopher (Broome). He say that the answer to ethical climate change questions can be answered by simple common sense thinking (Broome). “You should not do something for your own benefit that will harm another’s” (Broome). He asks the question which is worse the death of a child in 2108 or the death of a child currently living?” (Broome). John Broome argues that we have a responsibility to
61). Moreover, it can also be seen “as presenting us with the largest collective action problem that humanity has ever faced, one that has both intra- and inter-generational dimensions” (Jamieson pg. 61). Thus, climate change will not only affect us but our children, and their children’s children, for generations to come. So is this it? Have we as humans sold our souls to the climate change devil? Is this something that we will always have to deal with and if so then why should we even bother trying to prevent it? Dale Jamieson philosopher and author of the book, Reason in a Dark Time, argues that we have sold our souls to the climate change devil and will be stuck with this problem for eternity. However, just because we are stuck with climate change, Jamieson argues, we should not give up on trying to slow down its effects. In addition to Jamieson the Federal Republic of Germany also believes that we are stuck with climate change and have developed their own solutions to help mitigate the effects. Throughout this paper I will present a descriptive and normative analysis to help address the environmental justice claims that both entities are making. I will then go on to show the instability of Dale Jamieson’s argument in both his descriptive and normative analysis through the development of my own
Humans have been destroying the planet since we were able to stand on two legs. As a society, we need to work to reverse these terrible effects that our existence has on the planet. Sustainability is one way to begin reversing these effects, while still living our daily lives. In 2006, Al Gore presented his documentary, “ An Inconvenient Truth”, as a way to show the world the evidence behind global warming, climate change and the destruction of our planet. This documentary shocked the world. It was clear that changes needed to be made, but the destruction was more intense than previously thought. SInce this revelation in 2006, companies have tried to cut down on their greenhouse emissions, as well as offered sustainable products to their customers. Through a debate of morals and
“Unless humanity is suicidal, it should want to preserve, at the minimum, the natural life-support systems and processes required to sustain its own existence” (Daily p.365). I agree with scientist Gretchen Daily that drastic action is needed now to prevent environmental disaster. Immediate action and changes in attitude are not only necessary for survival but are also morally required. In this paper, I will approach the topic of environmental ethics from several related sides. I will discuss why the environment is a morally significant concern, how an environmental ethic can be developed, and what actions such an ethic would require to maintain and protect the environment.
Gore, Al. The Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do about It. New York: Rodale, 2006. Print.