Introduction
The paper demonstrates two philosophers’ theories on climate change, namely Laura Westra and Graham Long. The thoughts and ideas are evaluated by using a hypothetical situation. Company X, an engineering firm, decides to shift its operations to a developing country with less rigorous environmental rules in order to conceal its emissions while continuing to manufacture goods. The moral dilemma is that company X will continue to harm the ecosystem, with serious consequences for the residents. Westra (1996) believes that environmental threats and damages should be re-examined through the prism of integrity ethics, while Long (2011) offers deliberate democracy as a solution. I will argue that Westra’s theory of environmental threats, human rights, the breakdown of liberal democracy, and the need for global policy is better because enforcing international rules is the best way to approach global environmental challenges. Additionally, a personal reflection on the solutions to the environmental issues is presented, and global policies’ and regulations’ possibilities and effectiveness are emphasized.
Hypothetical Situation
New requirements for firms dealing with climate concerns are being implemented in the United States. Under new guidelines as part of a government-wide effort to combat climate change, corporations should be compelled to report their greenhouse gas emissions and how climate risk impacts their company. They must report on their climate impact, including sustainability insights and targets for fighting climate change. Company X, which operates in the engineering business, chooses to relocate its operations to a developing country with less stringent environmental regulations in order to conceal its emissions and continue manufacturing goods. Moving to a country with less stringent restrictions may allow X firm to develop, thrive, and take risks more freely than it might in the United States. Economies that allow enterprises to operate with little government involvement and regulations might be considered appealing destinations. Nonetheless, the moral dilemma is that the firm will continue to destroy the environment, with severe ramifications for the inhabitants.
Theories
The two philosophers’ views and theories, namely Laura Westra and Graham Long, will be discussed further to demonstrate possible solutions to climate change. Pojman et al. (2017) state that Laura Westra was a philosophy professor at the University of Windsor until she retired. She is a prominent environmentalist with two PhDs, namely philosophy and law, and extensive policy research in environmental law and ethics with several international organizations (Pohman et al., 2017). In her article, Westra (1996) contends that democracies are failing to acknowledge environmental deterioration. Traditional rights theories, notably Judith Jarvis Thomson, conveniently ignore the legitimate right not to be brought into question (Westra, 1996). Therefore, this right may be preserved, and politicians must go above and beyond democracy in order to enforce it.
Hence, a reasonable risk response may necessitate revolutionary political engagement. Westra (1996) argues that environmental attacks on the physical integrity of ecosystems, and hence on human physical integrity and capabilities, happen equally in wealthy North American and Western European nations as well as developing Southeast Asian countries. Subsistence agricultural laborers and those in other unregulated professional industries—are included in the ‘shadow economy.’ It includes the work of unlocated people, such as migrants and refugees and non-located activity, such as that deriving from electronic transactions (Westra, 1996). Understanding the essential nature of ecological and climatic functions and associated global dangers is critical for both legitimate and shadow economies. Therefore, people must closely examine the functioning of natural systems and the relationship between the goods they purchase and these systems. Westra (1996) advocates re-examining environmental hazards and damages via the lens of integrity ethics. The right to life, health, and physical integrity seem paramount and deserve robust support. Furthermore, this entitlement is inextricably linked to ecological integrity.
Democracy is regarded as the most potent form of governance for supporting and defending human rights. Nonetheless, it is precisely the unquestioning recognition of democratic institutions’ supremacy that is the fundamental impediment to mitigating public harms, notably environmental dangers to population health (Westra, 1996). The challenging interplay between rights, democratic systems, and health hazards must be reconsidered because democratic decisions may not best serve the public good in this regard without additional constraints. According to Kant, human life has infinite worth and humans cannot influence or allow others to affect their physical integrity for any gain or other purpose (Westra, 1996). As a result, human rights that reflect and maintain these intangible human goods, such as life, liberty, and physical integrity, cannot be ignored. Democracy requires that collective decisions be established on transparent acceptance of some options and inclinations over others and that these choices be achieved by a majority vote (Westra, 1996). Nevertheless, even in nations with democratic processes in place, it indicates that the system is helpless to prevent violations of human rights through the enforcement of damages to human life and health, at least by environmental ways.
Essentially, democracy serves the majority’s interests at the expense of the minority. Westra (1996) states that people’s solid rights to life and self-defense may readily be expanded to the ecosystem from the standpoint of immunity. Thus, invoking stricter, altered legislation looks justified on considerations of self-defense. These laws should replace regulations that segregate economically motivated, unforeseen injuries that gradually develop over time so that only unambiguous, readily apparent, and intentional harms are considered illegal. Firms may cease one operation and relocate to another place, frequently in less-developed nations with less stringent environmental requirements (Westra, 1996). Unfortunately for all people, the decision does not presage a renewed care for the environment or newfound regard for human life. Affirming the urgent need for rigid worldwide rules to preserve public life, health, and integrity is not committing the rash generalization of tarring all firms, namely sound and evil, with the same brush (Westra, 1996). It is designed to emphasize the importance of individual and ecological integrity and to seek to harmonize and institutionalize concepts and goals presently available in global regulations and national and international legislation.
Graham Long, the second philosopher, debates climate change responses. The potential damages linked with global climate change necessitate an immediate reaction (Long, 2011). Nonetheless, the nature and scope of the problem and humans’ proper reaction to it are constantly debated within the academic world and broader society. Divergence, not a plain error, underpins reasonable disagreement (Long, 2011). Consequently, reasonable disagreement may be best addressed in a paradigm of deliberative democracy.
The prevalence of a warming trend in the Earth’s climate is widely acknowledged. Long (2011) emphasizes that this scenario raises severe political and societal issues. It is commonly assumed that such a persistent warming trend, paired with the relative pace of warming, poses threats to human water and food sources and a severe hazard to human habitation (Long, 2011). These issues in environmental research, politics, and ethics are fraught with debate and contention. Scientists disagree on the magnitude and pace of change and the level of human involvement in it. Political, social, and economic experts disagree over the societal effects of climate change, its danger, and people’s responsibilities to stop or ameliorate it. Climate change science and relevant questions about how to account for the uncertainties and risks recognized by science are subject to the kinds of factors that contribute to reasonable disagreement. Long (2011) acknowledges that particularly uncertain and contradictory evidence, divergent methods of measuring that evidence, and the imprecision of essential topics are elements of reasonable disagreement. Nevertheless, the debate concerning climate change is caused not only by a scientific appraisal but also by environmental ethics and justice concepts.
It is feasible to see convergence as a tactic rather than a theory, a pragmatic approach to the diversity of environmental ethics. Long (2011) acknowledges that such a method advocates stepping back from controversies instead of seeking a reasonably uncontroversial base for environmental policy. As a reaction to reasonable disagreement between ways of living, political liberalism proposes a vision of justice supported in a language of public rationality – that is, by some reasons available to citizens regardless of their reasonably diverse convictions (Long, 2011). When it comes to climate change, this means developing the pillars of the policy response based on public reasons that everyone can agree upon in the future. Such public reasons could include mitigating harm and conserving natural resources and fundamental human necessities (Long, 2011). Divergent theories of the source and breadth of the moral worth of nature are correctly treated as part of, or indicating, bigger worldviews by liberalism.
Thus, it is essential to discuss and deliberate on opposing perspectives and their grounds to comprehend and resolve a reasonable disagreement. To provide someone with an adequate justification, people must first understand what sorts of justifications are acceptable (Long, 2011). Similarly, the discussion appears to be the best way to determine whether a dispute is reasonable or unreasonable. It then proposes various paths to settlement in these two circumstances (Long, 2011). A paradigm of reasonable disagreement might help provide a basic framework for a solution. Deliberation will eliminate differences based only on opposing interests, and democracy will then give a platform for those interests to compete or negotiate.
Theories’ Application and Argumentation
Describing how each philosopher would approach the hypothetical problem and what course of action they would propose to resolve the moral dilemma is crucial. Democracy alone will not solve the situation of Company X and protect the environment (Westra, 1996). Lindvall (2021) states that climate change puts democracies to the test in terms of cooperation and jointly confronting challenges of global importance. Climate change actions in democracies confront potential barriers such as short-term prejudices in decision-making, lack of consistency, weak monitoring mechanisms, and the regulation process’s permeability to objectives opposed to fighting global warming due to the role of money in politics (Lindvall, 2021). The worldwide spread of dangers demonstrates that territorial and political barriers cannot contain and restrict environmental deterioration and disintegration (Westra, 1996). Although liberal democracy is a synthesis between differing ideals and world views, it advances the majority’s interests at the cost of the minority (Westra, 1996). In the situation of company X, which has environmental assaults on the physical integrity of ecosystems, and, therefore, on human physical integrity and capacities, Westra (1996) would advocate a revolutionary political engagement. The philosopher would emphasize the urgent necessity for robust global norms to protect public life, health, and environmental integrity.
Even permits and rules lose their power when they cross national borders. Westra (1996) would describe the risks the company can bring to climate change that is not governed, licensed, and not required to take responsibility for its environmental footprint. Additionally, Westra (1996) would argue in favor of criminalizing behaviors that constitute an assault on the physical being of individuals. Companies cannot limit their ethical and practical constraints to their activities in their own country; dignity for human rights is required for any country or nation-state to play an active role in public international law (Westra, 1996). Self-contained democracies are insufficient to minimize the risks.
Consequently, it appears demanding to confirm respect and acknowledge a threat thesis that would connect more clearly the presence of hazardous products and practices and the specific responsibilities of all not to interfere with individuals’ rights to life and safety via a public international law. Environmental irresponsibility and eco-violent crimes must be immediately and even coercively regulated. According to Westra (1996), corporate predators can quickly relocate and restart the acts that triggered the relocation with little or no danger of retaliation. For instance, company X takes lawful corporate procedures for granted. As a result, the philosopher would suggest worldwide legislation to preserve public life.
The second philosopher, Graham Long, proposes a deliberate democracy as a solution; it deals with environmental challenges while embracing public support and organizations that restrict the dominance of special interests. Long (2011) acknowledges that the uncertainties and complexity of climate change science are far from educational: they reflect on the possibility, inevitability, and intensity of climate change’s negative repercussions, as well as how they could be mitigated. Furthermore, the scientific debate is not entirely separated from broader differences in attitudes and beliefs on scientific issues. As a result, there may be room to apply additional burdens of judgment in evaluating scientific agreement and disagreement (Long, 2011). The instance of climate change shows how different stances in environmental ethics produce different concepts of environmental policy-making; when fundamental values disagree, various policies emerge. As a reaction to legitimate disagreement between legislations in the native country of company X and the selected country for relocation, political liberalism is proposed. When discussing climate change issues and threats, it is critical to building the foundations of policy responses on public grounds that everyone can accept.
Citizenship is crucial in the liberal account at this point. Long (2011) claims that citizens in a liberal society are required to promote a fair system of social collaboration. Such a dedication offers liberal individuals a reason to support public arguments, even if they do not entirely agree. Lately, the language of environmental or ecological citizenship has been at the center of theoretical disputes, and governments are progressively embracing it. Unlike traditional liberal citizenship of a state, environmental citizenship has a distinct international component (Long, 2011). While humans can contribute meaning to global environmental citizenship, it retains a more nebulous concept. Nonetheless, in the instance of company X, an international policy may be formed that has two components: it requires a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level while progressing toward “a right to equal per capita carbon emissions” (Long, 2011, p. 519). Climate change is a worldwide issue, and solutions are determined at the international and transnational levels. Thus, the philosopher offers to embrace deliberate democracy to create policy via debate and discussion among parties.
Better Solution to the Case
Notably, selecting one philosopher’s idea over another is a complicated task. Westra (1996) emphasizes the critical need for solid global policies to defend public life, health, and environmental integrity, whereas Long (2011) suggests deliberate democracy as a solution. Long (2011) essentially shares the same thoughts on the importance of global policy that will impose regulations, for instance, on global carbon emissions. Nevertheless, despite the similarities of concepts between Westra (1996) and Long (2011), Westra presented the best answer to the hypothetical scenario of company X. The philosopher details the problem of corporate predators who relocate to avoid local laws; she adds that democracy alone is insufficient and that a more revolutionary strategy, such as worldwide rules, should be taken. In the scenario of company X, which exhibits environmental abuses and a lack of corporate responsibility, the remedy is to preserve public lives and ecosystems by criminalizing behaviors that create environmental threats. Companies should not confine their ethical and practical restrictions to their domestic operations. As a result, international laws to protect public life must be presented, and a global regulatory commission should be formed.
The second scholar, namely Long, has excellent ideas that deliberate democracy is a superior option to liberating democracy since it involves citizens and institutions. Long (2011) asserts that deliberative democracy is defined by continuous disagreement and seeks to create policy via debate and deliberation among parties. Discussing and deliberating on opposing perspectives and their grounds is vital to comprehend and resolving a reasonable disagreement. Nonetheless, the debate concerning climate change is caused not just by a scientific appraisal but also by environmental ethics concepts. The selection between different climate models, as well as the connection between data and model, are contentious. Climate models include a wide range of representations of essential atmospheric and hydrological processes owing to a lack of knowledge (Long, 2011). Legitimate disputes among scientists within the consensus are inevitable. Nonetheless, he focuses on scientific disagreement and ways to find a joint resolution, while Westra (1996) describes the significance of human rights worldwide and connects the idea to climate change. Therefore, the best solution to the case is a global policy introduction and, possibly, regulatory committee creation.
Personal Reflection
I would suggest establishing an international policy that regulates corporate activities in every country and requires adhering to environmental regulations worldwide. I checked on the availability of such agreements, and there is one global international treaty. According to Norton Rose Fulbright (n.d.), the 2015 Paris Agreement is the first international environmental pact to acknowledge the relationship between climate change and human rights expressly. The preamble suggests that Members should consider affected human rights such as the right to life, health, and the rights of certain vulnerable population groups such as Indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, migrants, and adolescents (Norton Rose Fulbright, n.d.). Nonetheless, the Paris Agreement is a means of control, not a final stage. Significant state initiatives are required to transform this global institutional backdrop into an effective global response to climate change (Hoffmann, 2022). Even though the Paris Agreement depends on the individual rather than group pledges, governments are apprehensive about getting ahead of their peers and rivals (Hoffmann, 2022). Therefore, I believe that establishing transparent national agreements with uniform reporting may be one method to address such concerns.
Conclusion
The opinions of two scholars, Laura Westra and Graham Long, were studied to offer alternative solutions to climate change. According to Westra (1996), environmental attacks on ecosystems’ physical integrity, thereby on human physical integrity and capacities, occur globally. The right to life, health, and physical integrity appears to be the most important and deserving of solid protection. The philosopher claims that democracy is powerless to prevent human rights abuses by enforcing damages to human life and health, at least through environmental means. Westra proposes stricter and modified legislation, such as global policies. Graham Long explores reasonable disagreement about climate change and believes it should be addressed through a deliberative democracy paradigm. Long refers to scientific disputes and efforts to reach a consensus, whereas Westra discusses the importance of human rights worldwide and connects the concept to climate change. Thus, Westra provided the best response to the hypothetical circumstance of company X. The scholar discusses the issue of corporate predators who migrate to bypass local regulations in depth. Personal reflection suggests that creating transparent international agreements may be a suitable way to overcome climate change issues.
References
Hoffmann, M. (2022). The Paris Agreement is working as intended, but we’ve still got a long way to go.
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.