Introduction
This paper explores the theories of climate change proposed by philosophers Laura Westra and Graham Long, evaluating their perspectives through a hypothetical scenario. The case in question involves Company X, an engineering firm that opts to relocate its operations to a developing country with less stringent environmental regulations. This move allows the company to mask its emissions while continuing its production activities. The ethical dilemma arises from the ongoing environmental harm caused by Company X and its detrimental effects on local residents.
Westra (1996) argues that environmental threats and damages should be reassessed through the lens of integrity ethics, emphasizing the need for moral responsibility. In contrast, Long (2011) proposes deliberative democracy as a solution, advocating for a more participatory approach to addressing climate issues.
I contend that Westra’s theory, which emphasizes environmental integrity, human rights, the breakdown of liberal democracy, and the necessity of global policy, offers a more robust framework. Enforcing international regulations is critical to addressing global environmental challenges effectively. This paper also includes a personal reflection on potential solutions to environmental problems and assesses the feasibility and impact of global policies and regulations.
Hypothetical Situation
In response to new climate regulations in the United States, which mandate that companies disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and assess climate risks, Company X decides to relocate its operations to a developing country with more lenient environmental laws. This move allows the company to avoid strict U.S. guidelines, potentially enabling it to expand and operate with greater freedom under minimal governmental oversight. However, this decision raises significant ethical concerns, as the company will continue to contribute to environmental degradation, posing serious consequences for the local population.
Theoretical Perspectives on Climate Change
This section delves into the theories of climate change proposed by philosophers Laura Westra and Graham Long, exploring their potential solutions. According to Pojman et al. (2017), Laura Westra, a retired philosophy professor from the University of Windsor, is a distinguished environmentalist with dual PhDs in philosophy and law. Her extensive research in environmental law and ethics has involved numerous international organizations. In her 1996 work, Westra argues that democracies are failing to adequately address environmental degradation. She critiques traditional rights theories, such as those proposed by Judith Jarvis Thomson, for overlooking the fundamental right not to be subjected to environmental harm (Westra, 1996). Westra asserts that this right must be upheld through more stringent political action beyond democratic processes.
Westra (1996) highlights the need for a radical political response to environmental threats, emphasizing that such threats impact ecosystems and human physical integrity in both affluent North American and Western European countries, as well as in developing Southeast Asian nations. She introduces the concept of the “shadow economy,” which includes unregulated labor, migrant and refugee work, and unaccounted economic activities like electronic transactions. Westra argues that a thorough understanding of ecological and climatic functions, and their associated global risks, is essential for both legitimate and shadow economies. She advocates for re-evaluating environmental risks and damages through the framework of integrity ethics, which prioritizes the right to life, health, and physical integrity, all intrinsically linked to ecological integrity.
Westra critiques democracy for its inability to fully address environmental harms due to its inherent flaws in protecting public health and human rights. According to her, democratic systems, despite their intent, often fall short in mitigating environmental risks to public health due to their failure to enforce adequate constraints (Westra, 1996). She argues that human rights, including life, liberty, and physical integrity, must be safeguarded against environmental harm, necessitating stricter and revised legislation.
In contrast, Graham Long’s 2011 theory addresses climate change responses by emphasizing the urgent need for action due to the potential damages linked with global climate change. Long asserts that the nature and scope of climate change, and the appropriate human responses to it, are subjects of ongoing debate within both academic and public spheres. He suggests that reasonable disagreements on climate change can be effectively managed through a framework of deliberative democracy, which promotes inclusive and thoughtful discourse on complex issues.
Both Westra and Long offer valuable insights into addressing climate change, with Westra emphasizing the need for stringent global policies to protect ecological and human integrity, and long advocating for a deliberative democratic approach to managing disagreements and responses to climate issues.
Addressing the Warming Trend: Political and Societal Implications
The widespread recognition of Earth’s warming trend has led to significant political and societal challenges, as highlighted by Long (2011). This ongoing warming, along with its accelerating rate, threatens human water and food resources and poses severe risks to human habitation (Long, 2011). The intersection of environmental research, politics, and ethics is fraught with intense debate and contention. Disagreements among scientists about the extent and speed of climate change, as well as its human contributions, fuel these debates. Experts in politics, society, and economics also clash over the societal impacts of climate change, its dangers, and the responsibilities of individuals and governments to address or mitigate it. The uncertainties and risks inherent in climate science contribute to these disagreements, which are further complicated by differing methods of evidence measurement and the imprecision of key issues (Long, 2011).
Long (2011) suggests that the debate surrounding climate change extends beyond scientific analysis to encompass environmental ethics and justice. He proposes that convergence should be seen as a practical strategy rather than a theoretical approach, advocating for a move away from contentious disputes in favor of developing a broadly accepted basis for environmental policy. This approach aligns with political liberalism, which seeks justice through public rationality—reasons that are accessible and acceptable to all citizens, despite their diverse beliefs (Long, 2011). In the context of climate change, this means crafting policy foundations based on universally agreeable public reasons, such as harm reduction, resource conservation, and safeguarding essential human needs (Long, 2011). Liberalism views divergent theories on the moral worth of nature as reflections of broader worldviews.
To effectively address reasonable disagreements, it is crucial to discuss and deliberate opposing perspectives and their underlying justifications. Understanding what constitutes acceptable justification is essential for resolving disputes (Long, 2011). The process of deliberation helps distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable disagreements and suggests potential pathways for resolution. By focusing on common grounds and using democratic platforms for negotiation, a framework for addressing and resolving disagreements over climate change can be developed.
Application of Theories and Proposed Solutions
In addressing the hypothetical dilemma faced by Company X, which relocates to a country with lax environmental regulations to evade stricter standards, it is essential to examine how different philosophers would approach the issue and propose resolutions.
Laura Westra’s Approach:
Westra (1996) argues that democratic processes alone are insufficient to resolve the environmental issues posed by Company X. According to Lindvall (2021), climate change challenges democratic systems by highlighting their limitations in addressing global problems. Democracies often struggle with short-term decision-making biases, inconsistency, weak monitoring mechanisms, and the influence of money in politics, all of which undermine efforts to combat climate change effectively (Lindvall, 2021). Westra (1996) points out that environmental damage transcends territorial and political boundaries, indicating that liberal democracy, while accommodating various ideologies, tends to prioritize the majority’s interests at the expense of the minority. In this context, Westra advocates for a revolutionary approach to political engagement, emphasizing the need for stringent global regulations to protect public health and environmental integrity.
Westra (1996) would argue that existing permits and regulations lose effectiveness when applied across national borders. She would highlight the risks associated with Company X’s operations in a country with minimal environmental oversight and advocate for criminalizing actions that harm individuals’ physical well-being. Westra asserts that ethical and practical constraints must extend beyond national borders, as human rights and environmental protection should be universally upheld. In her view, self-contained democracies are inadequate for addressing these global risks, necessitating robust international legislation to ensure corporate accountability and environmental preservation.
Graham Long’s Approach:
In contrast, Graham Long (2011) proposes a model of deliberative democracy to address the challenges posed by climate change. He acknowledges the uncertainties and complexities inherent in climate change science, which mirror broader societal debates and attitudes. According to Long, the disagreements in climate science and policy are influenced by differing values and worldviews. To navigate these disagreements, he suggests developing policy foundations based on public reasons that can gain widespread acceptance. This approach involves constructing policies grounded in universally agreed-upon principles, such as harm reduction and resource conservation.
Long emphasizes the role of citizenship in fostering a fair system of social collaboration. He advocates for environmental citizenship, which extends beyond traditional state-based liberalism to incorporate international elements. This concept supports the creation of global policies that address climate change through debate and discussion. For Company X, Long proposes an international policy framework that includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions to sustainable levels and promoting equitable carbon emission rights. He argues that effective climate change solutions must be developed through international and transnational cooperation, leveraging deliberative democracy to build consensus on policy responses.
Optimal Solution for the Case
Choosing between the philosophical approaches of Westra (1996) and Long (2011) presents a complex challenge. Westra emphasizes the necessity of robust global policies to protect public life, health, and environmental integrity, whereas Long advocates for deliberative democracy as a means to address climate change. Both perspectives recognize the importance of global regulations, such as those targeting carbon emissions. However, Westra’s approach offers a more effective solution for the hypothetical scenario involving Company X.
Westra (1996) identifies the issue of companies relocating to circumvent local environmental regulations and argues that democracy alone is insufficient to address this problem. She advocates for a revolutionary strategy involving stringent global rules to combat environmental abuses effectively. In the case of Company X, which engages in environmentally harmful practices and avoids corporate responsibility, Westra’s solution would involve criminalizing behaviors that pose environmental threats. This approach calls for the establishment of international laws and the formation of a global regulatory body to safeguard public health and ecosystems.
While Long (2011) presents valuable ideas about deliberative democracy, which emphasizes the role of continuous debate and citizen involvement in policymaking, his approach does not fully address the immediate need for enforceable global regulations. Long argues that deliberative democracy can resolve reasonable disagreements through discussion and consensus-building. However, he primarily focuses on scientific and ethical disagreements related to climate change, rather than proposing specific legal and regulatory measures.
In summary, although Long’s concept of deliberative democracy offers important insights into inclusive and participatory policymaking, Westra’s approach provides a more practical and immediate solution for addressing the environmental and ethical issues presented by Company X. The best course of action involves implementing comprehensive global policies and establishing a regulatory commission to ensure effective environmental protection and corporate accountability.
Personal Reflection
I propose the creation of a comprehensive international policy that governs corporate activities across all nations and mandates adherence to global environmental regulations. My research revealed that while there is a global framework, the 2015 Paris Agreement stands out as the first international environmental accord explicitly linking climate change with human rights. According to Norton Rose Fulbright (n.d.), the preamble of the Paris Agreement emphasizes the need to consider human rights such as the right to life, health, and the protections owed to vulnerable populations, including Indigenous peoples, individuals with disabilities, migrants, and youth. However, the Paris Agreement serves more as a guiding framework rather than a conclusive solution. Effective global climate action demands significant national initiatives to convert this institutional framework into a tangible global response (Hoffmann, 2022). Despite the Paris Agreement’s reliance on individual rather than collective pledges, there is a reluctance among governments to advance beyond their peers and competitors (Hoffmann, 2022). To address these issues, I believe implementing transparent national agreements with consistent reporting standards could be a viable approach.
Conclusion
The theories of Laura Westra and Graham Long offer valuable insights into addressing climate change. Westra (1996) argues that environmental damage impacts ecosystems and human well-being globally, emphasizing that fundamental rights such as life, health, and physical integrity require robust protection. She contends that democracy alone is insufficient to prevent environmental harm and proposes stringent global legislation as a remedy.
In contrast, Graham Long advocates for a deliberative democracy approach to climate change, focusing on addressing scientific disputes and achieving consensus. He emphasizes the importance of engaging in discussions to resolve reasonable disagreements.
While Long highlights the need for consensus-building, Westra underscores the global significance of human rights and their connection to climate issues. Westra’s approach, which advocates for international policies to curb corporate evasion of local regulations, appears to offer the most effective solution for the hypothetical scenario of Company X. Establishing clear and transparent international agreements could serve as a robust strategy to tackle climate change challenges effectively.
References
Hoffmann, M. (2022). The Paris Agreement: Progress and Challenges.
Lindvall, D. (2021). Democracy and the Challenge of Climate Change. International IDEA.
Long, G. (2011). Disagreement and Responses to Climate Change. Environmental Values, 20(4), 503-525.
Norton Rose Fulbright. (n.d.). Climate Change and Sustainability Disputes: The International Legal Framework.
Pojman, L. P., Pojman, P., & McShane, K. (2017). Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Westra, L. (1996). Environmental Risks, Rights, and the Failure of Liberal Democracy: Some Possible Remedies. In Sterba, J. S. (Ed.), Studies in Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy (pp. 53-79). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
