Essay on Limiting Rights of Individuals to reduce Climate Change

Introduction

Climate change also referred to as global warming is an issue facing every individual on earth. It is defined as the gradual change of weather conditions of a place over a period of time, usually as a result of warming of the atmosphere. Among the many factors responsible for it, its major contributor is the emission of Carbon (IV) Oxide gas through the burning of fuel (Widdows, 2014). This gas forms a sort of blanket over the atmosphere that causes the atmosphere to heat up over time. The heating up leads to the destruction of the ozone layer that allows harmful ultraviolet rays to reach the earth. Human beings are the most significant contributors to Carbon (IV) Oxide gas in the atmosphere. This is through the burning of fossil fuels in automobiles, industries, and nuclear power plants. Similarly, human beings lead in the hierarchy of destruction of the environment through deforestation, inadequate waste management, and clearing of land for agriculture and settlement.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Efforts are being made globally to rectify the effects of global warming and prevent further destruction of the environment. However, when effecting these efforts, there arises the issue of human rights and the possible infringement (Gibney, 2016). Questions arise on whether we are justified in limiting the rights of individuals for the greater good of reducing climate change or if human rights can be undermined to sort out the current crisis. Also, one asks oneself of how we can balance the rights of those yet to be born and who might never be born against those who are already living in need. All these questions narrow down on the ethics of the environment and solving climate change problems.

First and foremost, one has to address the justification of limiting the rights of individuals for the greater good of reducing climate change. The nature of human rights creates a phenomenon known as humanism that makes human beings perceive themselves as different elements of nature, unlike animals and plants (Gibney, 2016). Humanism also divides us as individual human beings with different traits. It is this element of humanism that has made human beings feel responsible for taking care of the earth as well as participating in destroying it. Human beings depend on the environment for their daily needs. Any form of destruction to the environment and resultant effect of climate change ultimately threatens human life and their rights. For instance, one of the fundamental human rights is the right to life. This right, coupled with the sense of conquering in human nature, makes human beings do anything possible to live; live comfortably (Gibney, 2016). In this endeavor, the human being is likely to create space in the environment for a house, some space for agriculture, for the industry, among others. Similarly, an individual may feel his or her right to life threatened if policies that stop one from felling trees to earn a living are passed into law.

Also, if limiting some of the rights of individuals-mostly human beings- for the greater good of reducing climate change is to work, what extends should this limiting reach? How far is far enough? The answers to these questions can explain whether or not, and it is justified to limit some rights. This argument can take two sides: defining some rights is vital to reduce climate change, and this limitation may necessarily cause more harm than good. Limiting some of the human rights under an umbrella of policies such as carbon quotas, carbon taxes, renewable energy programs, and re-use and reduction of water wastage can work (Widdows, 2014). For instance, the right to subsistence can be limited under the umbrella of renewable energy programs and water reduction.

Policies can be set to regulate the type of fuel consumed by individuals to reduce carbon emission. This can also fall on carbon quotas. Policies on water usage can be configured so that water level usage can be monitored per household, with fines on different amounts of no water re-used administered. However, such measure infringes on human freedom. Prolonged administration of such policies may cause sociopolitical revolts that may destabilize governments and create undesired political tensions between nations that share the same water resources (Widdows, 2014). Therefore, one can conclude that there is no justification of limiting the rights of individuals for reducing climate change.

Secondly, it is essential to view the argument on whether human rights can be undermined to address this crisis from a non-bias perspective. This can be done be done by observing climate change as a natural factor and the environment being composed of human beings, animals, the land, water bodies, among others. Defining the problem of the argument in this sense segments the rights of each element that makes up the environment as single entities. There are benefits of trumping human rights as they will aid protect the remaining aspects of the situation. For example, laws banning poaching of endangered species of some land animals and fish helps protect the specific species. Regulations on genetic engineering of plants help preserve the natural and indigenous crop seeds that would have otherwise become extinct (Widdows, 2014). Some of these regulations undermine the fundamental rights and freedoms of human beings but protect animal and environmental rights. Similarly, humans have the rights to protect and preserve the environment and therefore, undermining some of their rights aid in making other rights have superiority.

There is a flip side to this undermining though. Any threat to human rights automatically results in a reaction. For instance, punishing poaching of wild animals such as elephants and rhinos for their tusks and horns respectively, have led to hunting of other species of wild animals for trophies. Lions, leopards, tigers, and bears are hunted for their skin and teeth. Zebras and Orangutans are killed for their skins. There is a worse repercussion for undermining the human rights that are not undermining them at all. This is because human beings, viewing themselves as the most superior of species amongst all earthly organisms, favor their species the most and would do anything to make it remain superior above all others. Technically, there is more damage done when human rights are undermined when they are upheld.

Lastly, how do we balance the rights of those yet to be born and who might never be born against those who are already living in need? This argument is best defined by looking at the short and long term effects of climate change and how they interact with the rights of all elements of the environment. The rights of future generations and those living are a crucial issue in environmental ethics. However, the long term effects of climate change are adverse than the short term ones. For instance, the degradation of the ozone layer is likely to have more harm in the next 10 to 20 years than now. Also, the rise in the sea floor, spread of arid and desert areas are more likely to affect the future generations than the current ones. Therefore, in the spirit of humanism, human beings have the obligation of protecting the survival of their species at whatever costs. It is thus essential to protect the three core rights of the forthcoming generations: their right to life, subsistence, and health.

Conclusion

The rights of those living in need can be balanced against future generations by taking steps that reduce both the short and long term effects of climate change. Mitigation steps include reducing animal emissions, reducing fossil fuel use, and emissions (Widdows, 2014). Human beings can adopt new and renewable fuel, erect sea defenses, and come up with new crops that can survive the harsh climatic changes. Governments and country unions can come with policies that address climate change such as ensuring there is equity in taking responsibility for climate change. Countries should respond to climate change in the share of each's a contribution to it. Policies on the polluter-pays payments are also essential in ensuring that the current and future generations are assured of survival. Similarly, those who benefit from the initiation of projects that mainly contribute to climate change have to be responsible to address the effects of the same. It is important to acknowledge that solving the problems associated with climate change is a process- a long process. It takes time and a lot of effort.

References

Gibney, E. (2016, April). When The human in Humans isn't Enough. The Humanist, pp. 12-18.

Widdows, H. (2014). Global Environment and Climate Change. In H. Widdows, Global Ethics (pp. 226-247). Abingdon: Routledge.