So, last article we covered the more radical philosophies, those that either reject or transcend existing political and technological approaches to mitigating climate change. But what are the philosophies behind these more traditional, existing mechanisms?
One finds a philosophical basis for conventional environmentalism in part through modern utilitarianism, which, as constructed by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and Jon Stuart Mill in the eighteenth century calls for the value in actions to be measured by the degree of happiness which they produce. The philosophy therefore promotes the idea that the best course of action is that which brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Returning to the debate between preservation (protecting the earth for its own sake, as Paul Kingsnorth and John Muir advocate) and conservation (greatest good to the greatest number for the longest time, as Gifford Pinchot championed), environmental utilitarianism is more solidly in line with conservation.
The key distinction between present-day environmental utilitarianism and Paul Kingsnorth’s brand of preservation is that utilitarianism takes people into consideration. Part of the motivation for classical environmental policy is to protect the earth so that we as humans may continue using it (whether for practical purposes or for more abstract ones like happiness and experience of beauty). This “greatest good for the greatest number of people” idea does not move Kingsnorth, as he does not believe that people should be a factor in the discussion of whether or not to protect the earth. His philosophy is more transparently connected to the intrinsic value of the earth rather than to the “usefulness” of any of the earth’s resources.
Many public policies have (or at least purport to have) some foundation in utilitarianism, because they ostensibly seek to benefit the entire population. However, environmental policy arguably has an even more pronounced claim to a utilitarian foundation than other sorts of policies. In a way that others may not, environmental policy represents a well-defined public good—the earth and its natural resources are shared between all—and a less easily defined benefit to individuals. Also, environmental issues are very obviously connected with many other aspects of life. So by protecting the environment, policies also protect other rights.
We can most obviously see the effect of climate change on rights beyond environmental ones in nations experiencing the most extreme effects of climate change—particularly those already subject to massive sea level rise. Kiribati, a nation of thirty-three isolated and shallow islands in the Pacific, is one of these nations. Already, because of seawater encroachment, residents struggle to find fresh water. This lack of water access also jeopardizes food sources, as many of the plants that were once reliable diet staples cannot grow. With subsistence agriculture as a historically large component of Kiribati’s economy, many livelihoods are also at risk, as farming has become much more difficult with often-submerged land.
In addition to utilitarianism, Kiribati’s plight also draws attention to the human rights and justice components of environmental philosophy. Many of those who stand to be most impacted by climate change are those inhabiting developing countries—those in places like Kiribati, Tuvalu, and Micronesia, for example, whose homes are being washed away by rising seas. These places have, for the most part, not materially contributed to global emissions, so should not be compelled to pay for the irresponsible actions of larger, more developed countries. Developed countries shouldering more of the global emissions burden would represent a kind of penance for such countries–curtailing some of their growth or changing their ways of doing business to protect those in other countries suffering most from climate change.
The 2015 Paris Agreement is one of the centerpieces of modern international environmental policy. Through the Paris Agreement, almost every country in the world agreed to reduce emissions to limit global warming to below two degrees Celsius. The agreement creates a system of “Nationally Determined Contributions” to climate change mitigation that nations will agree to and attempt to strengthen over time. The agreement seeks to improve transparency, and encourages different domestic policies, including preservation of greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs, adoption of National Adaptation Plans to climate change’s effects and enhancement of public awareness and education. The agreement addresses human rights and justice concerns by adjusting requirements based on current development status. For instance, the agreement states that “[d]eveloped country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets” but goes on to say that “[d]eveloping country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts..” and should move toward the same goals as developed countries over time. In even starker contrast, “least developed countries and small island developing states” are only required to submit “strategies, plans and actions…reflecting their special circumstances.” The greatly increased flexibility in targets for less developed nations reflects a consciousness of the fact that most small developing and least developed nations do not contribute to global emissions (and by extension climate change) nearly as much as larger developed ones. Developing nations also may not have the capacity necessary to curtail existing emissions to as great an extent as larger nations. The principal benefit of this kind of international agreement is that it provides a framework for action, and goals that countries should seek to reach through that action. The consistent flaw in international environmental policy, on the other hand, is that it has no enforcement mechanism. International bodies have no power to compel nations to implement beneficial environmental policies—the fact that all actions are voluntary means that goals often go unmet.
The Green New Deal is an example of proposed domestic US policy which very prominently exemplifies utilitarianism through addressing interlinked issues, benefitting many different spheres. Beyond relying on sound environmental policy to provide a better quality of life in many disparate areas, the Green New Deal actually weaves in explicit provisions to address other progressive concerns. For instance, one of the other stated goals of the deal is to “provide all members of our society, across all regions and all communities, the opportunity, training and education to be a full and equal participant in the transition, including through a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one. The plan also includes a blanket reference to creating “basic income programs, universal health care programs and any others as the select committee may deem appropriate…”
The GND also includes more recognizably environmental provisions, such as “[d]ramatically expand[ing] existing renewable power sources and deploy[ing] new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources,” eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from multiple industries, and “funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases.” In effect, the environmental component of the Green New Deal seeks to decarbonize the economy. There is variation even in pursuit of this goal, with Ocasio-Cortez calling for 100% renewable energy in ten years, while others have called for “100% clean and renewable energy” by 2035, thereby lengthening the timeline and allowing for existing nuclear power sources as part of a sustainable plan.
The plan’s grouping of broad-based economic provisions with environmental ones is key for gaining support for the GND. The combination will galvanize not only those concerned about the environment but also those more concerned about unemployment. Arguably, the GND stands to be more successful than the closest international equivalent—the Paris Accords, because the plan resulting from it will have the force of US law. The provisions of the GND are not confined to the status of recommendations. However, the GND as it stands does run into some of the same pitfalls that the Paris Accords do. While the goals of the GND are slightly more specific than those stated in the Paris Accords (as no room need be left in the GND for different interpretations of individual nations), the goals have no stated mechanisms for achievement yet. Also, with so many very different goals rolled into one plan (while it could be a positive feature), may mean the plan is perceived as lacking focus.
Potentially, the great obstacle in all these philosophies, traditional or radical, is that none can survive by one person’s belief alone. Implementation of any idea involves levels of bureaucracy–levels of persuasion. With this concept in mind, view this two-article overview as a jumping off point. Read updates on governmental climate action, on technological breakthroughs. Experience nature’s beauty whenever you can, and never forget the poetry and possibility to be found in the earth you’re fighting for.