Article Link
Joan Russow argues that the time for inaction and indecisiveness is over. If we want to save our planet, then we must start taking bold measures. Even if she does not use the words precautionary principle in her article, it is very obvious that she uses it to back up her argument. The precautionary principle is stated to be “When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions will be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.” (Beder, 2006)
Russow says that “member states of the United Nations must acknowledge the science of dwindling glaciers, increasing atmospheric turbulence, ocean warming and acidification and rising sea levels” (Russow, 2009) showing that it is scientifically plausible that carbon emissions are effecting the climate and that the situation is getting closer and closer to a critical point.
Russow also points out that unacceptable harm will be inevitable since we are almost at the target of 1°C. Russow states that if we go beyond this limit “global systems on land, water and air will be so affected as to create vicious feedback cycles and destabilise many ecosystems and human societies.” (Russow, 2009) This is morally unacceptable harm because it indicates harm that is “threatening to human life or health... seriously and effectively irreversible [and] inequitable to present or future generations.” (Beder 2006)
Climate change over 1°C will threaten human life and health because we will be thrust into a world of destabilised ecosystems, in which it will be hard to produce enough food for the world. How much of our food comes from agriculture? Farming is hard enough as it is due to droughts, diseases, pests, etc without further destabilizing the environment. In unpredictable conditions crop yield will at best drop, at worst, it may be close to impossible to even get a yield. Russow is especially worried about those in third world nations who already have a hard time feeding themselves, as they will probably be the ones to suffer the most.
Climate change will also do irreversible harm, since feedback cycles are hard to break out of, especially one on a global scale. If we get caught in a feedback cycle of destabilising ecosystems, we will not only have to stabilize the ecosystems, but get them to the same condition they were in before the drastic change. This would be near impossible as there is no telling how many species may go extinct before we stabilize the ecosystems and there is no telling if we would even be able to get the ecosystems back into their original state. That, to Russow constitutes irreversible damage, and I have to say I agree.
Lastly, going past the 1°C marker is inequitable for future generations specifically. This may not happen in my lifetime, but the signs are growing steadily more urgent that we are going to destroy our planet. Would you want your children to grow up in a world where food may be scarce and extreme weather is prevalent? Where hurricanes like Katrina are a common occurrence? If we continue on the path we are treading Russow argues that all of those things may very well happen.
Russow may not mention the precautionary principle by name, but she wields it with great effectiveness to produce a thought provoking article.
Resources:
Beder, Sharon “Environmental Principle and Policies an Interdisciplinary Introduction” Virginia: Earthscan, 2006.
Russow, Joan “Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change: Time to be Bold” Pacific Free Press 4 Nov 2009. http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/4990-copenhagen-conference-on-climate-change-time-to-be-bold-.html
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Rising Plane Costs a Burden ?
Obviously we need to make changes as a human race if we intend to survive. Some still deny the fact the climate change exists and is becoming worse every day. The threat of runaway climate change continues to be an issue that more people should be informed of. We can all make changes on our own, and do little thing in our houses to reduce our own CO2 emissions, but in the end I believe it has to be the government that regulates emissions. In a recent blog entitled "Airline ticket prices rising, placing burden on students" by Chelsea Prestia she argues that airline tickets are too expensive. She believes that the airlines should stop raising their ticket prices, and charging fees on things like luggage because it is becoming too expensive for students to fly home (Prestia 2009).
I believe that if students think airline tickets costs are too expensive, then they should go to school closer to home. You have to weigh transportation costs before you go to a school far away. Furthermore, I totally agree with the airlines that ticket prices should continue to rise. Air pollution is a major source of CO2 emissions and it should be cut back. The amount of flying that some people do is completely ridiculous including business trips, vacations, and even school trips. We need to assess the needs of this flying and more importantly, assess the results of the emissions produced.
The most direct effect of these emissions would be to the environment. As caretakers for this earth it is our responsibility to make sure that the earth is kept healthy and sustainable. If we continue to pollute the earth as much as we currently are, the effect on biodiversity could be even more hazardous than it already are. With global temperatures rising it puts the fauna and flora of the tundra under the immediate risk of habitat loss. If we want to keep ecosystems sustainable and safe from unforeseen consequences we must make immediate changes in CO2 emissions. Cutting the amount of air pollution would make a big difference in total emissions.
Not only must we look out for the environment, but also for human kind. Humans have the right to a clean environment and the right to clean air. Therefore, it could be considered morally wrong that we are polluting at the cost of human health. It is not only about the current generation either. We must ensure that we leave a healthy environment for future
generations. I do not want to leave my kids to solve the problems that we made. It is our duty to solve these problems now and cutting airline emissions seems like a great way to do so.
In conclusion I believe that increasing airline costs would be a good step towards reducing emissions. That said, I do not think we should only make those who ride the plane pay for their pollution, but also the airlines themselves. Airlines are experiencing some economic problems, but it would not be right to correct their problems while making problems for the general public. There are more efficient alternatives to travelling by planes and I believe that we, in North America, should take advantage of them.
References
Prestia, Chelsea. "Airline ticket prices rising, placing burden on students." The Globe . 12 November, 2009. The Globe , Web. 26 Nov 2009..
I believe that if students think airline tickets costs are too expensive, then they should go to school closer to home. You have to weigh transportation costs before you go to a school far away. Furthermore, I totally agree with the airlines that ticket prices should continue to rise. Air pollution is a major source of CO2 emissions and it should be cut back. The amount of flying that some people do is completely ridiculous including business trips, vacations, and even school trips. We need to assess the needs of this flying and more importantly, assess the results of the emissions produced.
The most direct effect of these emissions would be to the environment. As caretakers for this earth it is our responsibility to make sure that the earth is kept healthy and sustainable. If we continue to pollute the earth as much as we currently are, the effect on biodiversity could be even more hazardous than it already are. With global temperatures rising it puts the fauna and flora of the tundra under the immediate risk of habitat loss. If we want to keep ecosystems sustainable and safe from unforeseen consequences we must make immediate changes in CO2 emissions. Cutting the amount of air pollution would make a big difference in total emissions.
Not only must we look out for the environment, but also for human kind. Humans have the right to a clean environment and the right to clean air. Therefore, it could be considered morally wrong that we are polluting at the cost of human health. It is not only about the current generation either. We must ensure that we leave a healthy environment for future
generations. I do not want to leave my kids to solve the problems that we made. It is our duty to solve these problems now and cutting airline emissions seems like a great way to do so.
In conclusion I believe that increasing airline costs would be a good step towards reducing emissions. That said, I do not think we should only make those who ride the plane pay for their pollution, but also the airlines themselves. Airlines are experiencing some economic problems, but it would not be right to correct their problems while making problems for the general public. There are more efficient alternatives to travelling by planes and I believe that we, in North America, should take advantage of them.
References
Prestia, Chelsea. "Airline ticket prices rising, placing burden on students." The Globe . 12 November, 2009. The Globe , Web. 26 Nov 2009.
Not So Sustainable
Lately it seems that there is a growing importance to sustainability. We are in an era of environmental concern as well as economic hardship. Amidst our capitalist, industrialized society it is strange to imagine a world without economic growth. Profit is important and money is important. A popular Cree proverb states, “Only when the last tree has died, the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize that we cannot eat money,” (natural collection, 2008). From this we can begin to consider the confines of growth, what does sustainability mean and what are it’s limits. It is reasonable that our planet can only tolerate so much abuse, the question is whether or not we are pushing it too far. In a recent blog posting on treehugger.com, the issue of disappearing carbon sinks is brought to the table. The world’s carbon sinks, be they oceans, forests, etc., are capable of mitigating 60% of our carbon dioxide emissions (Timmer, 2009). But a recent study in Europe shows that the continent’s carbon sinks are not able to store the quantity of carbon dioxide that they should technically be capable of, and land management is playing a key role in this troubling find.
The sustainability principle focuses on the idea that there is a limit to what we can take from the earth. Many resources are not renewable, such as fossil fuels, many are not renewable at the rate at which we are using them, such as water and timber (Environmental Principles and Policies, 2006). In order to maintain our natural resources, to avoid entire depletion and therefore ecological disaster, we have to set some level of sustainability. Trees need to be planted at the rate that they are being cut for example. The carbon sinks of Europe, namely the vegetation are seeing their effects mostly entirely negated due to the use of which the land is being put, emissions from farming, raising livestock, and spreading fertilizer are rendering the effects of the carbon sinks inadequate (DeFranza, 2009). If we consider the results of the study in Europe we see that this land resource is being taken advantage of, it no longer contains enough vegetation to absorb the emissions produced directly on it. We are not promoting sustainability while cutting down trees and clearing land for agriculture. According to the study Europe’s carbon sinks are reducing a mere 2% of annual emissions. So nearly 100% of greenhouse gases being sent into the air in Europe are not being absorbed by carbon sinks, there are not enough of them left. No part of that represents sustainability.
The sustainability principle was twisted in the beginning of it’s implementation, and a new term was coined, sustainable development. Basically our society’s need for continual economic growth is justified with this new idea. Sustainable development makes it acceptable to continue with expansion and profit-making so long as we think a bit about the environment. The goal is to be able to continue the use of the biosphere indefinitely. (Beder, 2006) But if we are supposedly practicing this sustainable development now, our greenhouse gas emissions and aptitude for clearing forests surely aren’t much proof. Our ability to use land in a way that exceeds the capabilities of carbon sinks to take in carbon dioxide is development, but it surely is not sustainable.
In the end, it is ourselves that we are hurting the most. I’m surprised that in this day and age, while so many people are aware of what we are doing to the environment with progress and development that more people don’t appreciate the fact that the we are hurting the foundation of our existence. Carbon sinks are a great natural aid in reducing the effects of our emissions, but if we are doing a poor job of managing land, of keep emissions down to begin with, then there is little that can be done. The sustainability principle is an important one because it tells the truth about our reliance on this planet, this truth being that we can not take more than what is there.
References
http://naturalcollection.typepad.com/blog/2008/05/only-when-the-l.html May 5 2008
DeFranza, D. New Study Sends European Carbon Sinks Down The Drain, November 24 2009
Timmer, J. Have we started to fill our carbon sinks? November 18th 2009
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/have-we-started-to-fill-our-carbon-sinks.ars
Beder, S. Environmental Principles and Policies An Interdisciplinary Introduction University of New South Wales Press LTD, 2006. 12-21
The Long and Winding Carbon Trail
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/recent/tarsands_report
Some vacation on black sandy beaches, however, the only black ‘sands’ in Alberta are it’s oil sands. The extraction of bitumen in the oil sands yields a viscous substance that “is refined for use in gasoline, jet fuel, and home heating oil” (Colenso, 2008). Due to our dependance on fossil fuels, tar sand development will increase three to five times the current amount (Greenpeace, 2009). According to the Greenpeace article, Dirty Oil: How the tar sands are fueling the global climate crisis (14 September 2009), “the Canadian government has actively obstructed energy conservation at home and has blocked the development of effective action on climate change abroad” (Greenpeace, 2009). The Canadian government benefits from oil trading; they do not consider the environmental impact that tar sands have on the climate. Serious action needs to be taken against the expansion of the oil sands before climate change is irreversible.
It is essential for the Canadian government to implement measures to reduce tar sand development to decease carbon emissions. This issue can be reviewed by applying the precautionary and the equity principles.
The precautionary principle is applied when preventive measures are required to evaluate the need for a policy, specifically pertaining to climate change. As stated previously, our dependance on fossil fuels leads to the expansion of oil sands. It is more detrimental to the environment to remain idle than instituting an effective policy to reduce green house gases (GHG). Examples of preventive policies are the cap and trade and carbon tax legislations. As expressed in my last blog, titled Regulatory Control vs. Economic Incentives: Which is the best to consider?, carbon taxes would be most effective because companies are taxed for the amount of carbon emissions outputted. This is a ‘pollution charge’. The cap and trade policy allows companies to buy and trade carbon shares, much like a stock market. However, this method can prolong our dependance on fossil fuels and oil sand expansion. The precautionary principle is an effective approach in reducing carbon emissions. The more our climate is changing, the more difficult it will be to mitigate the change.
The equity principle demonstrates the necessity for a reduction in carbon emissions. The two types of equity are intragenerational and intergenerational. “Intragenerational equity is concerned with equity between the same generation. It covers justice and the distribution of resources between nations...and what is fair for people within any one nation” (Beder, 2006). For example, developing countries are subject to flooding from ice in the poles as the climate warms. These countries, such as the Maldives and Indonesia, do not have the resources, money or technology to prevent such occurrences. It is unjust for these countries to be harmed when they did not contribute to GHG, or climate change.
Intregenerational equity is concerned with a “just distribution of rewards and burdens between generations, and fair and impartial treatment of future generations” (Beder, 2006). If we delay in taking preventive measures toward climate change, there will be a greater burden for future generations to help the climate. During this delay, fossil fuels will eventually diminish, and a new global alternative for energy will be necessary. This is a huge burden on prospective generations because the dependance on fossil fuels will be immense; a new energy source would have to be developed immediately to sustain the global population. If we procrastinate in mitigating GHG, there is more stress on future generations to correct the ruined climate. Why wait for the future when we can act now?
The expansion of Alberta’s oil sands reflects the reliance that we have on fossil fuels. Increased dependance is proportional to carbon emissions. The Canadian government and other governments can evaluate this situation by applying the precautionary and equity principles. These, among many other principles, work in tandem to prove that preventive measures need to be taken to combat climate change. If our generation cannot take preventive measures to protect our home, will future generations follow in our carbon footsteps?
References:
Beder, S. (2006). Environmental Principles and Policies (pp. 74-81). Australia, AL: Earthscan.
Colenso, M. (2008, October 18). What are Oil Sands?. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-sands1.htm#
Greenpeace (2009, September 14). Alberta tar sands a major climate and economic threat: Greenpeace report. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/recent/tarsands_report
Global warming caused by overpopulation
The impact of the world’s ever growing population is beginning to have detrimental affects on our environment. Due to the fact that we as a population abuse resources and other natural aspects of the world, it is becoming more and more clear that a global crisis is forming. In a recent article, research demonstrating these massive population increases show just how quickly the world’s total population is actually growing. Such figures include the fact that “…It took until 1804 for our numbers to reach 1 billion… [and] there are now 6.6 times more of us now than 200 hundred years ago” (Scientific blogging, 2009).
It is obvious there is no known value which is to large for the world’s population, however due to the many signs of global warming and other massive changes in the environment, the numbers are far too large even now. Overpopulation is now being declared by some to be the cause of global warming, due to the fact that as the years passed and the populations continued to grow, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere also started to rise. The Industrial Revolution allowed for advances in technology but also began the time when fossil fuels were introduced. This meant things could be done more efficiently and at faster rates, and during the 200 years when our population increased by 6.6 times.
It has been socially accepted by many over the years to have large families. In the past, large families have been needed to “till the farm and work the family business” (Scientific blogging, 2009) and also offset infant mortality. In many industrializing nations, such as Tibet, child morality rates are very low due to poor living conditions and disease, so often mothers will attempt to have many kids in order for enough to survive. The perception was once that the world had infinite resources and it did not matter and that there was“…no need to consider the fact that constant growth and expansion might one day come up against finite resources and threaten our very existence” (Scientific blogging, 2009).
In order to attempt to curb this population growth some countries have attempted to implement the precautionary principle. An example would be China’s birth limit, where basically only one child may be born to a family, and if more children are conceived then the parents would be taxed for set child. This plan has failed in many ways however due to bribery in order to have more children, and also due to increase child kidnapping rates in order to have a larger family. If another attempt to reduce overpopulation, such as monetary incentives, populations may decrease, however this plan would be extremely costly to implement for an entire nation and it borders on being unethical to pay someone not to give birth.
It is my opinion therefore that in order to prevent global warming we need to be decreasing the world population, however a new type of solution must be created. This may be able to be done by combining several methods such as the precautionary principle and incentives, however it is certain that if nothing is done, the world population will continue to grow at alarming rates, and our resources will eventually be completely used.
References:
Over Population of the Planet and Global Warming. David Houle, 17 Nov. 2009. Web. 24 Nov. 2009.
Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies an Interdisciplinary Introduction. Minneapolis: Earthscan Ltd,. 2006. Print.
It is obvious there is no known value which is to large for the world’s population, however due to the many signs of global warming and other massive changes in the environment, the numbers are far too large even now. Overpopulation is now being declared by some to be the cause of global warming, due to the fact that as the years passed and the populations continued to grow, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere also started to rise. The Industrial Revolution allowed for advances in technology but also began the time when fossil fuels were introduced. This meant things could be done more efficiently and at faster rates, and during the 200 years when our population increased by 6.6 times.
It has been socially accepted by many over the years to have large families. In the past, large families have been needed to “till the farm and work the family business” (Scientific blogging, 2009) and also offset infant mortality. In many industrializing nations, such as Tibet, child morality rates are very low due to poor living conditions and disease, so often mothers will attempt to have many kids in order for enough to survive. The perception was once that the world had infinite resources and it did not matter and that there was“…no need to consider the fact that constant growth and expansion might one day come up against finite resources and threaten our very existence” (Scientific blogging, 2009).
In order to attempt to curb this population growth some countries have attempted to implement the precautionary principle. An example would be China’s birth limit, where basically only one child may be born to a family, and if more children are conceived then the parents would be taxed for set child. This plan has failed in many ways however due to bribery in order to have more children, and also due to increase child kidnapping rates in order to have a larger family. If another attempt to reduce overpopulation, such as monetary incentives, populations may decrease, however this plan would be extremely costly to implement for an entire nation and it borders on being unethical to pay someone not to give birth.
It is my opinion therefore that in order to prevent global warming we need to be decreasing the world population, however a new type of solution must be created. This may be able to be done by combining several methods such as the precautionary principle and incentives, however it is certain that if nothing is done, the world population will continue to grow at alarming rates, and our resources will eventually be completely used.
References:
Over Population of the Planet and Global Warming. David Houle, 17 Nov. 2009. Web. 24 Nov. 2009.
Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies an Interdisciplinary Introduction. Minneapolis: Earthscan Ltd,. 2006. Print.
The Polluter Always Pays
Climate change has become one of the most controversial problems researched by scientists in the past decade. This research has lead to the discovery of many harmful contributors to climate change, one of the main contributors has been found to be the carbon emissions from car exhaust. As the population grows there are more cars on the road, emitting more carbon into the air and therefore making a greater impact on the climate. Some governments, for example the Dutch Government have implemented a carbon tax on each kilometre driven, with a bill being sent every month in the mail. The number of kilometres driven is tracked by a GPS system installed on each car. At the end of each month individuals will be sent a bill taxing them to pay 7 cents per kilometre driven. Each year the government plans to increase the tax in order to push the public to make significant reductions in carbon emissions (Breitbart 2009).
Carbon taxes on vehicles would be classified as a pollution charge, one that could greatly impact the public depending how often an individual uses their vehicle. A tax put on each kilometre driven would be an example of the ‘polluter pays principle’; the polluter would pay depending on how much carbon they emit from their vehicle. In this case those who do not use a motor vehicle are rewarded by not being required to pay the extra tax. The ‘polluter pays principle’ states that money paid into carbon taxes is used to cover the cost of preserving the environment from climate change, making polluters take responsibility for the damage they are causing. Once polluters realize the damage they are causing and the consequences of having to pay for the pollution, they will be more inclined to refrain from emitting carbon in the first place (Beder 2006).
The polluter pays principle allows people to take responsibility for their actions and strives to influence people to reduce their emissions in order to avoid paying. By implementing a carbon road tax on each vehicle, governments are taking control of how much carbon is emitted into the air. Individuals know how harmful car exhaust is to the environment and how greatly it impacts climate change, and yet some people would still refuse to make reductions. This is when individuals need to start paying the price for the pollution they are causing.
The main goal for the ‘polluter pays principle’ is to discourage drivers from using a motor vehicle and trading their car for an alternative such as public transit. Not only will this reduce carbon emissions but there are many other positive effects to reducing the number of cars on the road. “With less traffic and perhaps fewer stressed drivers, fatal accidents should fall 7 percent, and carbon emissions from road travel would be cut by 10 percent, the ministry said” (Max 2009). Some may think the government is only trying to increase taxes to maximize input but they state that “nearly six out of 10 drivers would benefit while tax revenue would remain the same” (Max 2009). The tax money is said to be put towards cleaning the environment and protecting it from further damage.
The polluter pays principle is an excellent way to reward those who refrain from polluting and to forcing polluters to take responsibility for the amount that they are polluting. It is fair that those who pollute most in this case emit the most carbon from their vehicle, should be the ones to pay the most. The carbon road tax ensures each individual pays for the emissions they are responsible, in hopes they will be strongly encouraged to reduce emissions.
References
Breitbart News. 13 November 2009. Netherlands to levy 'green' road tax by the kilometre. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.244057bd1b30448115575c2187e68681.141&show_article=1. Accessed 24 November 2009.
Max, Arthur. 14 Novemeber 2009. My way. Dutch drivers to pay tax on road time, not on car. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091114/D9BVD87G5.html. Accessed 24 November 2009.
Beder, Sharon. Polluter Pays Principle. Environmental Principles and Policies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. University of New South Wales Press Ltd, 2006.
Carbon taxes on vehicles would be classified as a pollution charge, one that could greatly impact the public depending how often an individual uses their vehicle. A tax put on each kilometre driven would be an example of the ‘polluter pays principle’; the polluter would pay depending on how much carbon they emit from their vehicle. In this case those who do not use a motor vehicle are rewarded by not being required to pay the extra tax. The ‘polluter pays principle’ states that money paid into carbon taxes is used to cover the cost of preserving the environment from climate change, making polluters take responsibility for the damage they are causing. Once polluters realize the damage they are causing and the consequences of having to pay for the pollution, they will be more inclined to refrain from emitting carbon in the first place (Beder 2006).
The polluter pays principle allows people to take responsibility for their actions and strives to influence people to reduce their emissions in order to avoid paying. By implementing a carbon road tax on each vehicle, governments are taking control of how much carbon is emitted into the air. Individuals know how harmful car exhaust is to the environment and how greatly it impacts climate change, and yet some people would still refuse to make reductions. This is when individuals need to start paying the price for the pollution they are causing.
The main goal for the ‘polluter pays principle’ is to discourage drivers from using a motor vehicle and trading their car for an alternative such as public transit. Not only will this reduce carbon emissions but there are many other positive effects to reducing the number of cars on the road. “With less traffic and perhaps fewer stressed drivers, fatal accidents should fall 7 percent, and carbon emissions from road travel would be cut by 10 percent, the ministry said” (Max 2009). Some may think the government is only trying to increase taxes to maximize input but they state that “nearly six out of 10 drivers would benefit while tax revenue would remain the same” (Max 2009). The tax money is said to be put towards cleaning the environment and protecting it from further damage.
The polluter pays principle is an excellent way to reward those who refrain from polluting and to forcing polluters to take responsibility for the amount that they are polluting. It is fair that those who pollute most in this case emit the most carbon from their vehicle, should be the ones to pay the most. The carbon road tax ensures each individual pays for the emissions they are responsible, in hopes they will be strongly encouraged to reduce emissions.
References
Breitbart News. 13 November 2009. Netherlands to levy 'green' road tax by the kilometre. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.244057bd1b30448115575c2187e68681.141&show_article=1. Accessed 24 November 2009.
Max, Arthur. 14 Novemeber 2009. My way. Dutch drivers to pay tax on road time, not on car. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091114/D9BVD87G5.html. Accessed 24 November 2009.
Beder, Sharon. Polluter Pays Principle. Environmental Principles and Policies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. University of New South Wales Press Ltd, 2006.
Inequity in the Arctic
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/11/16/inuit-climate-change.html.
Canada's Inuit people have long thrived in arctic conditions. Their lifestyle and culture revolve around ice, snow and the animals which inhabit such regions. However, with global warming progressing so quickly and glacial melting rates on the rise, the question of how the Inuit will cope in future years is becoming increasingly pressing. This issue was brought up recently in the CBC News article “Inuit leaders demand action at climate-change conference.” The article discusses Canada's northern provinces and territories and their need to speak up at the upcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen.
The way the north is being affected by climate change comes down to an issue of equity and human rights. Equity refers to fairness in the allocation of gains and losses(Beder 2006). It is an unfair truth that each nation's contributions to global are not equal to the amount by which it affects them. Unfortunately, the Inuit are greatly disadvantaged by this inequity. In general, they are known for their sustainable lifestyles; fishing and hunting to feed and clothe themselves and consuming very little when compared to the rest of North America. However, they are facing the harshest consequences of climate change as they depend on the arctic ice which is quickly melting.
As the ice thins, polar bears suffer, as they no longer have a surface on which to hunt seals and the Inuit are suffering for the same reason. Also, inland lakes have begun to drain into the ocean without adequate glacial barriers, killing vast amounts of freshwater fish, another food source(Inuit Observations 2000). In addition to the lack of food, the thin ice becomes a safety hazard when people can no longer cross lakes and other frozen bodies of water without risking their lives. As you can see, this is becoming an issue of, not just equity, but fundamental human rights. The Inuit people face extinction because their rights to a safe and life-sustaining environment have been infringed upon. Not only that, but their cultural heritage is being compromised as it becomes more difficult to carry on their native traditions. In fact, a human rights case was launched against the Bush administration in 2003 by Inuit peoples living in Alaska and northern Canada. They claimed that their human rights were being violated by the US government because they refused to cut greenhouse gas emissions (Brown 2003).
Referring to the original article, it is important for the Inuit to take an active role in the Copenhagen conference, as they are so directly threatened by the negative effects of climate change. The chairwoman of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, Sheila Watt-Cloutier has said that “[o]f all the peoples in the world, knowing just how negatively impacted [they] have been by globalization, [they] should be in the lead as to how [they] are going to create balanced sustainability in [their] own Arctic"(Inuit leaders 2009). With this, I agree wholeheartedly. While it seems unjust that the Inuit are subjected to the most drastic affects of climate change, they still need to take initiative in order to preserve the lifestyle and cultural traditions for which they have fought for so many years.
References:
Beder, Sharon. “The Equity Principle.” Environmental Principles and Policies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. University of New South Wales Press Ltd, 2006. 70-90.
Brown, Paul. “Global Warming is killing us too, say Inuit.” The Guardian. Dec. 11, 2003. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/dec/11/weather.climatechange>. Nov. 22, 2009.
“Inuit leaders demand action at climate-change conference.” CBC News. Nov. 16, 2009. <http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/11/16/inuit-climate-change.html>. Nov. 22, 2009.
“Inuit Observations on Climate Change.” Community Adaption and Sustainable Livelihoods. 2000. International Institute for Sustainable Development. <http://www.iisd.org/casl/PROJECTS/inuitobs.htm>. Nov. 22, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
