A central element of fairness is sharing. Taking what is yours and not more because to do so would mean someone would have less. So is it fair for us to adversely effect the biosphere, when the impact will fall disproportionally on future generations?
By James Dyke, University of Southampton
Can you remember the first time you said “That’s not fair”? Perhaps you wailed, aghast as your favourite toy was taken from you, or after a visit to the park was cut short. And can you remember the first time someone responded “Life’s not fair”? There are entire galaxies of outrage that young children endure. But the blunt trauma of discovering you are not the centre of the universe, that someone else may be indifferent to the injustice you have suffered does tends to stand out.
A central element of fairness is sharing. Taking what is yours and not more because to do so would mean someone would have less. Of course what is rightfully yours may not necessarily be the same amount as mine or anyone else’s. Slices of cake are one thing. As the accounting gets more complex, working out fair shares can get quite complicated, if not positively creative.
Nonetheless fairness is seen as a necessary element when it comes to individual or collective decisions. You may disagree to what extent rich people should be taxed more than poor people; such disagreement would often be around whether it’s fair or not.
So is it fair for us to adversely effect the biosphere, when the impact will fall disproportionally on future generations? Given the potentially hundreds of years carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere, along with the delays, sinks and feedback mechanisms that are part of Earth’s complex climate, it may take many decades or centuries for the consequences of our emissions to play out fully. If we are the captain setting sail on a course towards dangerous climate change, then the destination will only be reached some years after all currently aboard are dead.
Consider the ten billion people predicted to live on Earth in 2100. If they are to have lives worth living, then they would need to generate at least 50% more energy, grow 50% more food and gain access to 50% more water than we do now. If we continue on a “business as usual” scenario with our carbon emissions then they would need to do all that at the same time as rapidly adapting to the onset of dangerous climate change. Are we more important than these future people? Are our lives worth more? To what extent the welfare of these future people should be considered now, is a fascinating question that seems to cut deep into our notions of right and wrong and fairness.
People are held accountable for their actions irrespective of their intentions. Take the crime of manslaughter. If I fancied learning archery in my back garden, missed the target entirely and killed a neighbour by mistake, the fact I didn’t intend to wouldn’t mean I’m innocent, and wouldn’t change my prospects of spending time at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. Perhaps I could shoot arrows further into the next street. I would be just as responsible for any death or injury that resulted. Having the consequences of your actions separated in space, or time, doesn’t diminish your responsibility or culpability.
What complicates these discussions – what can, in fact, derail them entirely – is the assumption that consequences of our behaviour now are the unavoidable conditions that stem from greater development. We may not have a cure for cancer or personal jetpacks, but life for most in developed nations is significantly better now than it was 100 years ago. Surely one of the things that drives our emissions is the active participation in the process of development? People will have better lives in the future because we have built a better word for them.
Who can imagine what life will be like in 100 years? One thing we are increasingly sure about is that carbon emissions, together with habitat destruction, species extinctions and phosphorus over-use, are examples of pushing the planetary system beyond its safe operating limits for future generations. We seem to be in denial about the consequences of our actions, wishfully thinking that by the time the impact of our behaviour is felt, the world will be so changed that it will no longer by harmful.
We pull back, release, launch; we see our actions take flight with the empty promise that when they fall back to the ground they will have been transformed from mortal hazards into international, inter-generational largesse. And that is neither honest, nor fair.
***
James Dyke does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
–This article was originally published at The Conversation.
–Read the original article.
–Photo: Bugsy Sailor/Flickr
If climate change really is a problem, then confronting it by trying to force the standard of living down is a horribly inefficient and wasteful approach which will probably hurt the poor far more than the rich and connected when human nature is taken into account. The amount of money it would cost just to get meager benefits is astounding. A much better approach is to rely on the advancement of technology not just for new energy sources, but also to harden our infrastructure and help us cope with whatever problems do come along (which, in my opinion, are almost… Read more »
That strategy sounds like.. “We should depend on advancements that may or may not be discovered by a small group of people, instead of all working together (since we all live on this planet) to solve this problem.” We need a more creative solution. These ideas are old and too simple to solve our environmental problems. We need to look at the problem at the source, and see how we have come to live so horribly inefficient and wasteful lifestyles, which has already hurt the poor far more than the rich. Just my two cents at how to look at… Read more »
I appreciate the response. However, you’re a little vague as to what your approach is. When I say “horribly wasteful and inefficient approach”, I mean that the environmental benefit every billion dollars would yield is virtually nil. I’m not sure exactly what you mean when you say “horribly wasteful and inefficient lifestyles”, but I’m guessing you define waste as any standard of living higher than the basic sustenance level. That would describe most of the free world including us. If so, how is it that my standard of living is harmful to the poor? Would you have us all live… Read more »
We cannot rely on the advancement of technology to save us from this. What people seem to conveniently forget is that the planet has been forced to the brink already. An example: Technology is engaged in trying to bring us more efficient cars, by electric energy if possible. The fact is that the manufacture of a car destroys more resources and causes more waste and pollution than will ever come out of the tailpipe of that car, no matter what it runs on. Another example: Solar and wind power all require the manufacture of the parts to power them. Copper,… Read more »
So you’re proposal is that 7 billion people go back to a hunter-gatherer state? Any approach that requires people to give up modernity is a non-starter. There is no such thing as a pollution-free society. Even if we all were intimately involved with the fish, we would still pollute the earth. The question is to what magnitude do we pollute. For all the talk about how much the US pollutes, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to China, India, or the old Soviet Union. That’s because we’re wealthy enough to afford technology that allows us to engage in industry… Read more »