Hill and Wilson suggest that the key to finding morally defensible solutions to address climate change is to develop appropriate dispositions that guide morality. Thus, they championed the virtues of truthfulness, justice, and hope as the ultimate solutions to climate change (Williston 249). However, these virtues demonstrate both anthropocentric and ecocentric attributes because they assign the role of environmental conservation to human beings. For example, the concepts of truthfulness, justice, and hope, still allow human beings to take advantage of their environment while believing they are not doing harm. On the other hand, ecocentric views obligate human beings to acknowledge their responsibility to nature by placing serious concern on environmental issues, which facilitate less destruction.
Economic approaches to climate change spearhead policies to manage climate change by addressing the human impact in its deterioration and limiting greenhouse gas emissions, or actions that pose a threat to the future of human beings. However, these approaches are anthropocentric because they intend to alleviate the level of human destruction to the environment, but place human beings and their economic development at the center of all initiatives (Schönfield 296). Although scientists and policy-makers are aware that the climate change issues persist because of individuals’ and industries’ contributions, they neglect these issues in the name of development.
Tackling climate change requires an anthropocentric outlook because human civilization is built on continuous advancements, scientific developments, and innovations that enable individuals to carry out their activities more efficiently. Today, human beings have achieved great heights in technological development, especially in artificial intelligence. Thus, drawing on Wilson’s virtue of hope, human beings can create reliable solutions to address climate change once and for all, given time and resources. However, they must thrive and advance first before they develop these solutions.
Environmental sustainability is a term coined from the need to diminish degradation and allow natural resources to replenish. However, Litke argues that sustainability has become a limiting factor to positive action because it promotes neglecting people’s responsibilities (Litke 376). Human beings often treat the environment as a resource hub without acknowledging the implications of environmental degradation. Nonetheless, Leopold suggests that the next stage of human ethical development will involve the expansion of ethics to include non-human factors in the environment.
Leopold supports that the environment has the right to thrive like the human race. As a result, it should not be perceived as a means to obtain resources; rather it should be an end in itself. Leopold further suggests that human beings have an obligation that outweighs their self-interests because they are members of the natural community and not its conquerors ((Leopold 77). As a result, like Litke, he supports that people should appreciate nature and recognize that it should be conserved to enable it to sustain life. Thus, they should advance towards improving life instead of neglecting natural habitats as they waste away.
Suzuki also suggests that individuals should recognize that they are part of the environment because it provides the resources required to stay healthy and alive. As a result, everything, including one-celled living organisms to complex forms of biodiversity should achieve sustenance and thrive (Suzuki 347). When human beings neglect their role in the environment, they neglect the source and foundations of their livelihoods, food security, quality of life, and health. Thus, they should do more to ensure that the environment is not only thriving but existing in harmony by doing the right thing, especially when no one is watching. I believe that the notion of environmental sustainability is redundant as it limits individuals’ actions towards the environment. It gives individuals the idea that they can pursue selfish gains as long as they observe stipulations that assure life for the next generations, thus allowing them to turn their backs on environmental degradation.
Social ecology is a concept of political ecology, placing focus on communism and opposing the capitalist system where production and consumption systems are at the center of human existence. As a result, it intends to create an environment that is united, decentralized and guided by moral reason (Malthus 348). Although the capitalist system has allowed individuals to thrive for centuries, it is the root cause of injustice, inequality, and marginalization, which exposes individuals in some regions to inhumane treatment by others and corporations. Hence, a reliable solution to ensuring environmental ethics is eradicating injustice and inequality.
Although global national governments continuously advocate for cohesion and partnerships to standardize living conditions across the globe, economic power plays a crucial role in determining policy formulation and implementation. As a result, more powerful nations take advantage of developing nations while consuming their vital resources. Moreover, corruption and injustice have contributed to neglecting social and environmental factors that threaten the life of human beings on earth (Malthus 350). Consequently, if the human race does not unify and change its ways, the future generations will face grave reparations, since the environment will be unbalanced and unable to accommodate its inhabitants.
The capitalist structure of human society has also led to the unequal distribution of wealth as some individuals and organizations have amassed wealth for decades. Sadly, some people across the globe suffer from extreme poverty, obligating them to live on less than a dollar daily. Subsequently, their immediate issues prevent them from paying attention to problems like environmental degradation, thus exposing them to more harm (Williston 249). However, ending inequality and injustice will place more individuals in a better position to acknowledge the impact of external forces on their environment and take action.
Works Cited
Leopold, Aldo. “The Land Ethic,” Environmental Ethics for Canadians. ed. Byron Williston. 2nd edition; Oxford University Press Canada: 75-87.
Litke, Robert F. “The Concept of ‘Sustainability,’” Environmental Ethics for Canadians. ed. Byron Williston. 2nd edition; Oxford University Press Canada: 375 – 381.
Malthus, Thomas. “An Essay on the Principle of Population,” Environmental Ethics for Canadians. 2nd edition; Oxford University Press Canada: 319-325.
Schönfield, Martin. “American Disenlightenment, or Climate Change Made in the USA,” Environmental Ethics for Canadians. ed. Byron Williston. 2nd edition; Oxford University Press Canada: 294-301.
Suzuki, David. “The Power of Diversity,” Environmental Ethics for Canadians. ed. Byron Williston. 2nd edition; Oxford University Press Canada: 347-350.
Williston, Byron. “Epistemic Virtue and the Ecological Crisis,” Environmental Ethics for Canadians. ed. Byron Williston. 2nd edition; Oxford University Press Canada: 247-253.
Williston, Byron (ed.) Environmental Ethics for Canadians. 2nd edition; Oxford University Press Canada