Freedom and responsibility
On the scale of states, it would be unreasonable to expect historic non-polluters, such as the developing countries of Nigeria or Bangladesh, not to pollute using the most efficient means of industrialization, as our ‘pollution limit’ had been reached by states like Germany or the USA. These developing states have a higher responsibility to ensure the stability of democracy, to ensure their people can eat, etc. Not only is this because it is difficult for populations to meaningfully take climate action about a crisis which will affect them only in a few years if they are not sure whether they will starve next week, but because a government’s first obligation is to its people. This would also violate an idea of fairness – one cannot reasonably expect populations in the global south to stay agrarian societies, locking them out of higher modes of economic production achieved by industrialization and education. This is not only unprincipled but also impractical – responsibility is tempered by realism. There is no use in preventing society from developing industrially for sake of temporarily lower emissions if the population and leaders of the society are intent on developing regardless of outside circumstances; operating under utilitarianism, it would be the responsibility of those who wish to take climate action to ensure that this society can develop as rapidly as possible until it reaches a state of industrialization with fewer emissions, e.g. exchanging coal power for nuclear after rapid industrialization (as is occurring in India). Developed countries, however, must weigh their responsibilities towards their people against the wider world. At the point where people are not starving and are reasonably well-educated, the responsibility towards the climate may expand in importance, not just as that would set a good example for developing countries, but because the majority of economic growth through industrialization (e.g. building of schools and railways, increasing productivity of workers) has most likely already been achieved. Therefore, in order to ensure the crisis can be dealt with, it would be prudent to begin work on de-polluting and moving to post-industrialization. The state and individual have a responsibility to weigh up their differing responsibilities and choose the most suitable one. Increased responsibility may occur with receiving greater authority and through moral declarations. Should somebody take it upon themselves to take responsibility – through campaigning on a promise of climate action or through signalling that they are devoted to protecting the environment – it would be reasonable to expect them to live up to their declarations, independent of whether they originally caused the problem in question. Further, if somebody achieves a position of authority over a related area, then it could be a reasonable expectation that they should institute change as they possess one of the few solutions, e.g. a government minister who has authority over environmental regulation of companies has a responsibility to regulate to address the crisis; a logging company in the Amazon has a responsibility to take greater care in deforestation due to soil erosion by an upstream factory. The size and the nature of responsibility belonging to people and organizations is entirely dependent on context. To conclude: the world is a place of problems; some problems we had a hand in creating; some problems occurred and will occur independently of our action. However, if one is complicit in these problems; if one criticizes these problems; if one professes to care about these problems; if one is the only person or structure to have the ability to solve these problems, then responsibility can be expected of, be thrust upon, or be taken up by you if one seeks to leave the world a better place than how it was found.
116
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting