The decisions we make on the environment ripples into the future. Whether it is as catastrophic as the Chernobyl disaster or not using a reusable water bottle, each decision has a consequence. Even more daunting, the impacts can metamorphize into even larger and horrendous impacts over time. For example, the plastic water bottles you used during your lifetime will be on this planet for thousands of years and keep slowly killing marine animals who ingest the microplastic bits. So, how do we protect the victims of our daily decisions? A lot of people, groups, and communities are impacted by environmental injustice. However, a difficult group to advocate for is the one that is not alive yet – the future and our future selves. In this paper, I argue the importance of advocating for this group of people.
While on the pursuit of intergenerational justice, it is difficult to build a case in the court system or to simply advocate for people who do not exist. One argument made by contemporaries is that negotiation would not be possible if the people live in two separate times. Thus, the living can advance or undermine the interests of future generations (Wolf 521). Another argument is that future persons simply cannot have rights. This is argued by the metaphysical argument, since future people do not exist then their rights are unable to exist (Wolf 521). Meanwhile, the skeptical argument takes the angle that future people have no rights because how can one be harmed by an action if it no longer exists in the future (Wolf 521). However, there is one argument that I believe squashes the previously stated arguments. Across the world, there is a moral obligation to not roll boulders down a mountain. “Even if it turns out that there is no one on the path below, or no one playing in the dark forest, it does not follow that there is no obligation to avoid these reckless actions, as long as there might be come such potential victim” (Wolf 521-522). In other words, it does not matter if there is no currently existing person that can sue for intended damages or negligence, but what matters is that there could be. The possibility of causing irreparable environmental injustice on to a victim is reason enough to avoid reckless actions. We all have a moral responsibility to not blindly push a boulder down a hill onto our future generation and hope it misses them.
Advocating for future generations and our future selves is critical because of how effective it can be, particularly in judicial systems. This is present in the Julianna vs. the United States case. It started with Julianna and 21 other young plaintiffs suing the United States for implementing regulations that are increasing greenhouse gas emissions. They argue this is an infringement on their current and future life and liberty. Currently, a judge has stated the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue. In return, the plaintiffs are issuing an appeal. As seen, there is controversy in the United States judicial system on whether one’s future self has standing to sue. However, the fact the case has gone as far as it has is only good news on how today’s society is understanding the appropriateness of advocating for future generations. People understand the youth and the unborn are the ones to be effected by climate change, yet have no voice. By the time these children grow old enough to advocate for themselves, it will be too late. In that point in time, the effects of climate change would be irreversible. Therefore, it is important to advocate for the youth and the soon to be generations right now. The Juliana vs. the United States case is a prime example of how the youth are currently fighting for their future and intergenerational environmental justice, and it’s working.
Asides from the effectiveness of implementing intergenerational justice, it is also important to advocate for this group on the basis of environmental citizenship. For instance, soon the impacts of climate change will worsen and become disproportionally more lethal on future generations. As stated, “The burdens of climate change are likely to increase environmentally displaced populations (environmental refugees) by a factor of five, affecting as many as 250 million people by 2050” (Figueroa 347). That is a whole lot more people being effected by climate change in the upcoming years. Therefore, the ethical argument is that people should employ environmental citizenship in regards to developing protocols or policies. As environmental citizens, the people in the present have a duty to protect the future generations because we are an integral part of the larger ecosystem at play (Hargrove 323). Thus, environmental citizenship is just another way of implementing intergeneration justice. However, it places a larger role on the individual and one’s responsibility to future generations. Therefore, each person has certain obligations that are asymmetrical on one’s ability to act (Hargrove 324). So, United States has far more responsibility to act due to the country’s power, being the major greenhouse emission producer across the World, and the capability to switch our economy into one that is more sustainable. Meanwhile, the burden on Fiji to prevent worsening climate change impacts is far less because of their low carbon footprint and are a less developed country. It is important to keep in mind this post-cosmopolitan environmental citizenship when developing policies that all countries can agree upon and can pull their weight in. It is through the lens and morality of environmental citizenship in which we, as people, can properly advocate for intergenerational justice.
In conclusion, there are many different forms of environmental injustice across the world. However, there is one group that I believe has been missed and unproperly recognized – the future and our future selves. They are the ones who are going to be harmed the most drastically. Within this group, there will be communities of certain socio-economic backgrounds that will be hit even harder. Therefore, it is important to encompass this group and to provide preventable measures on the harm they will be impacted by climate change. It is important to do so morally on the pretext of environmental citizenship. Meanwhile, it is also important to advocate for the future because it can make headway into the judicial system, thus enforce future environmental policy.
Words: 1063
What is the main difference between intergenerational justice and intragenerational justice? I feel like they were explained in the same way in the reading.
Works Cited:
Figueroa, Robert Melchior. Environmental Justice. Macmillan Reference USA, 2009. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgvr&AN=edsgcl.3234100116&site=eds-live.
Hargrove, Eugene C. Environmental Citizenship. Macmillan Reference USA, 2009. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgvr&AN=edsgcl.3234100110&site=eds-live.
Wolf, Clark. Intergenerational Justice. Macmillan Reference USA, 2009. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgvr&AN=edsgcl.3234100161&site=eds-live.
Environmental Studies 