Search Here

Are we morally obliged to protect the environment for our future generations? Even though some give a resounding yes, many Americans believe that it is not an ethical issue. Steve Gardiner, a philosopher at the University of Washington, says that the reason for this, in part, is that most of the emissions produced originate from our desire for inexpensive food and energy that is available in short-term and conveniently. "But the full impact of those emissions is spread out over a very long period of time. And so many of the effects, and particularly the most severe, even catastrophic effects, are not to us now, but are in the future, and of course then on other people." It is this fact that poses a difficult question of justice and fairness. This is the reason most people are able to look away from the ethics of climate change. "If we were to continue to take our modest benefits now, and pass on the severe costs into the future, then one thing we might not like to do is draw attention to the fact that that's what we're doing. Cause looked at in that way, it seems morally indefensible." According to Gardiner, the only way to solve the global warming problem is by addressing it as an ethical problem, not just a political, economic or scientific one, reports Yale Climate Connections.

One can see evidence of political inactivity in developing a global regime that is healthy. This suggests the need to encourage the moral and political philosophy that creates awareness regarding how and why we should address the issue of climate change. This will help in preserving as well as extending the little progress that is being made and also reinforce the arguments against those who have not delivered as per their promise to contribute to reduce emissions, as reported Nature