Climate change is an issue that has been at the forefront of the global political agenda, as this problem requires an immediate solution. In this regard, it is vastly agreed that humanity should limit its carbon fuel extraction to the rates that would ensure global warming only by 1.5°C (Muttitt & Kartha, 2020). However, Klein (2014) argues that instead of reducing the existing production levels, wealthy countries’ activists, politicians, and businesses hope that people from less developed states will not increase their production. Without a doubt, such an approach raises certain ethical questions concerning the justice behind the latter claims from a historical perspective.
The existing system of carbon fuel extraction can hardly be justified from any existing framework. Indeed, from the utilitarian perspective, the current state of affairs is beneficial only for the small percentage of the world population that mostly resides in developed countries (Seawell, n.d.). In a similar vein, it can be argued that the current production is unethical from virtue-based, deontological, and communitarian perspectives (Seawell, n.d.). As such, society fails to reach its full potential and, secondly, considers people – not personal wealth and power – as an end.
Yet, asking people that still were not actively involved in active carbon fuel extraction not to increase their mining industry instead of reducing their production seems to aggravate the question of climate justice even further. The problem is that nobody will adequately compensate for such actions under the existing economic paradigm. However, considering the fact that the communities that refuse to extract gas and oil regardless of their availability bear the costs of non-participation, it would be fair if others repay them for the sacrifice. For instance, it can be the free provision of carbon fuels or technologies that allow producing renewable energies.
Additionally, the climate movement should encourage compensation for the groups of people that were negatively affected by the extraction system. For example, the governments may encourage companies in such regions to be more environmentally friendly through subsidies and force the businesses to hire local citizens. However, if the groups that currently hold power would only rely on disadvantaged groups to solve the problem of climate change, it would further worsen the poverty of the latter. Thus, ‘climate justice’ would solely be the instrument to promote the interests of wealthy people and nations.
References
Klein, N. (2014). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. Simon and Schuster.
Muttitt, G. & Kartha, S. (2020). Equity, climate justice and fossil fuel extraction: Principles for a managed phase out. Climate Policy, 20(8), 1024-1042.
Seawell, B. (n.d.). Four ethical approaches. Web.