This past week, I attend two amazing talks in Dublin that focused on the moral arguments of climate action – One from Asad Rehman hosted by Friends of the Earth and the other featuring speakers from several faiths hosted by Christian Aid, Trocaire, and Climate Gathering . As a scientist, I generally avoid using moral arguments as reasons to solve climate change because I’m simply more comfortable arguing my case based on my scientific expertise with data and statistics rather than speaking on ethics and morality. However, this week, I was struck by what a compelling case the events’ speakers had that solving climate change is as much, if not more, an ethical issue than a scientific one. Unlike the scientific arguments that must accept some level of uncertainty and are defined in terms of probabilities of just when and how much the earth will warm and what the ecological impacts will be, climate justice is simply about “doing the right thing” to/for other people.
Some of the arguments that struck me in this week’s events included:
- Natasha Harty from EcoCongregation Ireland: ‘Loving my neighbour means not emitting so much carbon dioxide that I flood their delta.”
- Actress and Writer, Melanie Clark Pullen: “Will my daughter turn to me in 20 years’ time and angrily ask, ‘How did you think you could carry on living like you did? It’s not fair!’”
- Fr. Sean McDonagh, who explained that our religious models must encourage solidarity, not just with other humans, but with all creation around us.
www.mrcjf.org These local prophetic voices aren’t the only ones arguing for climate justice. Even former president, Mary Robinson, and Pope Francis are vocal about the need for action on climate based on moral obligation. The irony that our country’s most famous president is also the most famous global voice of climate justice, while her country was recently ranked 124th out of 151 countries for environmental sustainability and has yet to take any action toward becoming a fossil-free society or truly combating climate change is palpable.
Given that there are so many compelling moral reasons to act on climate change and so many inspirational people pronouncing these reasons, why isn’t the climate justice argument having greater impact?
Given that there are so many compelling moral reasons to act on climate change and so many inspirational people pronouncing these reasons, why isn’t the climate justice argument having greater impact?
Have we ever succeeded in protecting the environment based on justice or morality?
birdnote.org The talks I attended this week were inspirational in part because there was such a diverse audience of concerned citizens – not just environmental activists, but people representing nearly every faith group in Ireland. With such consensus among a diverse group of people, there was a sense that climate change was not just a concern of a few “tree-huggers” but of a large part of Irish society and that the idea of justice for other humans and future generations might be the argument that is popular enough to finally induce action.
That got me thinking about the times when society has been successful in achieving environmental victories, moments like those inspired by Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’, which resulted in a U.S. ban on DDT pesticides, or the signing of the Montreal Protocol, which protected the ozone layer by phasing out CFCs worldwide. I wondered what arguments were used to elicit such strong global agreements and protection of our environment.
While the science of how CFCs contributed to destruction of the ozone layer was less certain than the science of climate change, the Montreal Protocol took less than 18 months to agree globally. There are lots of articles explaining the many reasons for its success and what we can learn with respect to consensus on climate change, but I couldn’t find any that mentioned a moral argument to protect future generations as a reason for agreement. Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ appeared to have a moral argument to protect nature, but the analysis of her success indicates that prior to her book, destruction of nature had not raised much public concern and that it was Rachel’s extension of the impacts of DDT on contamination on the food chain, cancer, and genetic damage that were ‘too frightening to ignore’.
I polled some of my friends on this topic and none of us could think of a global environmental issue that succeeded based on a moral/justice-based argument. When we have acted unanimously on an environmental issue, is it simply because we’re trying to protect ourselves rather than out of a sense of moral obligation?
That got me thinking about the times when society has been successful in achieving environmental victories, moments like those inspired by Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’, which resulted in a U.S. ban on DDT pesticides, or the signing of the Montreal Protocol, which protected the ozone layer by phasing out CFCs worldwide. I wondered what arguments were used to elicit such strong global agreements and protection of our environment.
While the science of how CFCs contributed to destruction of the ozone layer was less certain than the science of climate change, the Montreal Protocol took less than 18 months to agree globally. There are lots of articles explaining the many reasons for its success and what we can learn with respect to consensus on climate change, but I couldn’t find any that mentioned a moral argument to protect future generations as a reason for agreement. Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ appeared to have a moral argument to protect nature, but the analysis of her success indicates that prior to her book, destruction of nature had not raised much public concern and that it was Rachel’s extension of the impacts of DDT on contamination on the food chain, cancer, and genetic damage that were ‘too frightening to ignore’.
I polled some of my friends on this topic and none of us could think of a global environmental issue that succeeded based on a moral/justice-based argument. When we have acted unanimously on an environmental issue, is it simply because we’re trying to protect ourselves rather than out of a sense of moral obligation?
Has morality ever won a political argument?
I wondered if maybe there was no place in politics and government policy anymore for moral reasoning. Do we vote for our public representatives strictly on the basis of how much they promise to cut our taxes or make us richer? But the world, and the citizens of Ireland, have changed public policy based on moral issues in the past– Asad Rehman’s talk reminded me of Ireland’s role in ending apartheid in South Africa and in particular, the selflessness of the 11 workers in Dunnes Stores resulting in an Irish government ban on South African products. I can think of plenty of climate “bad guys” Ireland could boycott or shame if the public will existed to do so. The fracking companies might be a good place to start.
What’s the missing link between winning the political argument on climate action and climate justice?
time.com Last Sunday, 900 people drowned off the coast of Libya, bringing the total refugees who have drowned this year to 1,700. It’s estimated that as many as 200,000 refugees could arrive in Europe by the end of 2015. The 90 who survived the crossing this week were from a wide range of countries, including Mali, Eritrea, Bangladesh, Senegal, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Gambia and Ivory Coast. The press reports that these refugees were fleeing “poverty, persecution and war” in their home countries for a better life in Europe. Check the links I’ve included and you’ll see that every country these refugees came from is on the front lines of climate change and has been experiencing the impacts of a changing climate since the early noughties.
This week’s refugees are not the only recent deaths related to climate change. The Syrian civil war, which has killed more than 200,000 people in the last four years, has recently been attributed to climate change resulting in widespread drought, migration and resulting conflict. The Philippines lost nearly 10,000 people to Typhoon Haiyan in 2013, and this year thousands of people on the island of Vanuatu were left homeless and without food at the mercy of Cyclone Pam. Such events are becoming more frequent and more intense as a result of climate change.
This week’s refugees are not the only recent deaths related to climate change. The Syrian civil war, which has killed more than 200,000 people in the last four years, has recently been attributed to climate change resulting in widespread drought, migration and resulting conflict. The Philippines lost nearly 10,000 people to Typhoon Haiyan in 2013, and this year thousands of people on the island of Vanuatu were left homeless and without food at the mercy of Cyclone Pam. Such events are becoming more frequent and more intense as a result of climate change.
| A DARA report estimated that five million deaths in 2010 were related to climate change and fossil fuels, making climate change one of the leading causes of death in the world. (For comparison, cancer causes about 7.6 million deaths per year). Eighty-three percent of the deaths due to climate-related factors happened in low-carbon-emitting developing countries — in other words, the places least responsible for climate change and the definition of climate injustice. |  grist.org |
World Health Organisation reports that between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress, and studies suggest that climate change could expose an additional 2 billion people to dengue fever by 2080.
There is evidence to indicate that nearly every humanitarian crisis on the globe can be linked to or is worsened by climate change, and yet we don’t see that link being clearly made in the mainstream press. I can think of a number of well-known Irish people who have been very active in fundraising for the Philippines relief effort and yet don’t think much about climate change. Our Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, is at the E.U. refugee crisis meeting as I write yet he is infamous for arguing that Ireland should have “special concessions” so as not to have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. As compelling an argument as climate justice is, if we don’t directly relate it to recent human atrocities, it is merely just a concept and doesn’t convince anyone to take real action on climate.
There is evidence to indicate that nearly every humanitarian crisis on the globe can be linked to or is worsened by climate change, and yet we don’t see that link being clearly made in the mainstream press. I can think of a number of well-known Irish people who have been very active in fundraising for the Philippines relief effort and yet don’t think much about climate change. Our Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, is at the E.U. refugee crisis meeting as I write yet he is infamous for arguing that Ireland should have “special concessions” so as not to have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. As compelling an argument as climate justice is, if we don’t directly relate it to recent human atrocities, it is merely just a concept and doesn’t convince anyone to take real action on climate.
Lessons learned on climate justice
pixgood.com This week, I heard the most compelling arguments for action on climate based on justice for those in other countries, for future generations, and for all species on Earth, but as 17 year old, Amy Coghlan, said at this week's Climate Conversation, 'Reading the statistic is not the same as being the statistic". So it may not be surprising that the climate justice argument that resonated with me the most was made by Asad Rehman as he described his childhood memories in London of signs outside pubs and shops that said “No Blacks or Irish”. As a boy from Pakistan growing up in London, he related to the Irish as being similarly discriminated against. He pointed out that the Irish, like the Pakistanis, had escaped poverty and hardship in their own country to find a new life in England. Like the refugees fleeing Africa this week, the Irish were once the "statistic" - fleeing Ireland for a better life elsewhere.
I remember the Ireland that Asad described – visiting my family here as a child growing up in the United States thirty years ago, being aware of how economically and socially deprived Ireland was with its crumbling roads and cold, damp houses. It was only the lucky few in my family who didn’t have to emigrate from Ireland to find jobs, and I was a product of that immigration. Asad’s comment reminded me of that Ireland of the past, and I thought about those 900 souls who drowned this week and how our own development and prosperity has contributed to those people facing hardship the way the Irish once faced. If anyone in the world should be fighting for climate justice, it is the citizens of Ireland who still remember what poverty and forced immigration means to the people of a developing country.
Our current crop of politicians seem to have blinders on to anything that doesn’t involve job creation and immediate economic gains for Ireland, but I don’t believe our citizens are so narrow-minded. Ireland has always been an extremely generous society, giving to causes and countries who are not as privileged as we have become. It’s time we remind our politicians of that Irish spirit and force them to act swiftly and strongly to help combat climate change – Sitting on the fence or doing the bare minimum is, quite simply, immoral.
I remember the Ireland that Asad described – visiting my family here as a child growing up in the United States thirty years ago, being aware of how economically and socially deprived Ireland was with its crumbling roads and cold, damp houses. It was only the lucky few in my family who didn’t have to emigrate from Ireland to find jobs, and I was a product of that immigration. Asad’s comment reminded me of that Ireland of the past, and I thought about those 900 souls who drowned this week and how our own development and prosperity has contributed to those people facing hardship the way the Irish once faced. If anyone in the world should be fighting for climate justice, it is the citizens of Ireland who still remember what poverty and forced immigration means to the people of a developing country.
Our current crop of politicians seem to have blinders on to anything that doesn’t involve job creation and immediate economic gains for Ireland, but I don’t believe our citizens are so narrow-minded. Ireland has always been an extremely generous society, giving to causes and countries who are not as privileged as we have become. It’s time we remind our politicians of that Irish spirit and force them to act swiftly and strongly to help combat climate change – Sitting on the fence or doing the bare minimum is, quite simply, immoral.
Keep fighting the good fight!
-Cara
-Cara
- Asad Rehman's talk for Friends of the Earth Ireland is available on their YouTube channel here
- The Prophetic Voices climate conversation hosted by Christian Aid, Trocaire, and Climate Gathering is available here
RSS Feed