A 'Greener' Justice

September 18, 2020

A 'Greener' Justice

My Observations:

I remember being with my friend Lily (mentioned in the last blog post), when she suddenly received a text from a loved one back home in Ghana. In the message, the loved one explained to her that they could not contact her earlier in the day because of a power outage. To me, power outages are not something that typically happens in my everyday life, but to her and those who live in Ghana, power outages are frequent. She explained to me that these outages can last for almost a whole day. It is to the extent that half of an apartment complex will have power, while the other half does not. Although, these power outages are erratic, they do have some good consequences. One consequence being an increased demand for solar energy, which is more environmentally beneficial.

...But Who Bears the Brunt?

Now, you might think that an increase need for solar energy is a wonderful thing (by all means, it is a great consequence), but we need to take a deeper look at this situation. Perhaps you may live in an environment that does not experience these frequent power outages, but your environment is one of the biggest contributors to climate change. Is it fair that a country such as Ghana should bear the brunt of these actions?

When you think of the word 'justice,' what comes to mind?

Justice is a "fundamental, social, ethical, and mental" responsibility that everyone should strive to fulfill in order to make society flow smoothly. There are different types of 'justice,' such as 'distributive justice' (justice as equality), 'need-base justice' (not everyone has the same needs), or 'merit-based justice' (based on what someone deserves). But when you think about different environmental problems across the world, it is disheartening that developing countries are suffering from the burden of what established countries have made.

In the conversation of climate change, I agree with John Rawls who believed in fairness of responsibility. The 'polluter pays' principle is something that needs to be deeply enforced, especially in this time of invasive climate change. Countries like America, China, or Russia, should be the biggest contributors for mediating this crisis, being that they utilize the the most resources. As we hear the increasing stories of young children having to do homework in a mall or under a street light, we should be questioning our moral capacity regarding the subject of climate change. Is it fair? Is it just? Is it equal?

Times Square- New York City
New York City generates about 33 million tons of waste each year, which is more than that of Tokyo (larger 'megacity') that produces about 12 million ton a year.

Prompt:

Do we have duties to protect future people from adverse effects of climate change? Why? Who is “we”?

When we say the future, we are talking about our descendents. We are referring to the sustainability and reservation of the products that we have created in the present. So, it is only right that 'we,' as in everyone in the world, should protect future people from adverse effects of climate change. It should be a moral obligation that we do this because a simple choice, can cause the degradation of a whole generation. I believe that these actions do not have to be monetary. It can be mitigation actions, that people can simply do to contribute. This way, poorer and developing countries do not have to spend much money. However, established countries should put in more work because they have the resources to do so. The people in the future have the right to live a sustainable life. It will be unfair if we take that from them due to our own vices and selfishness. Humans have the intellectual capacity to create and destroy. Whether you believe in a higher and more divine existence, the vices of man is causing the degradation of a creation that was intended to cater to human and animal life. We must fix this problem now!