We all hear about this word at one point and time in our lives… climate change. Hot
summers, cold winters, and bush fires, air pollution and rising sea levels, yet no one
seems to question what the cause is of this issue. Who is directly involved and what
are stakeholders such as the Australian government, economy and the Christian
perspective doing in order to combat this issue. According to UNFCC climate change
is defined as “ a change in climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human
activity that changes the composition of the global atmosphere in which is in
addition to the natural climate variability observed over a compatible time periods”.
Greenhouse effect is defined by the Australian Academy for Science as a barrier that
traps heat energy in order to keep the planet warm. The average temperature is
approximately 15 Celsius without he greenhouse effect the temperature would reach
to approximately -‐18 degrees Celsius. Most scientists agree this is due to the
increased amount of cars in the cities for example in Sydney there is approximately
35% of cars on the road this causes emissions such as carbon dioxide to be released
into the atmosphere. Climate change addresses difficult matters such as science,
economics and politics. The people who are in the most risk are the poor people.
Wealthy nations however experience a lower risk due to the fact that they are simply
able to look after themselves. Social justice is a measure or ordering of people, which
seeks to bring into existence social relationships that guarantee the possibility of
distributive justice. Social justice demands that institutions of society are orderly in a
way that makes it possible to protect the rights of those who are not able to speak up
for themselves. This term can also be referred to as advocacy. This essay will
describe the issue of climate change and the role that stakeholders have in this issue
Climate change
and how they uphold the common good.
Climate change is considered an issue of social justice due to the fact that developing
countries end up paying the price for the greenhouse gasses that are emitted by
richer countries such as the United States and Australia. According to the QCEA the
reason climate change is a social justice issue concern is that small islands will be
affected by rising sea levels. Communities that reside in those areas will have to
move elsewhere because their homes will be affected by rising sea levels. This is a
type of injustice because people in the poorer nations will be affected the most, while
wealthy countries keep on producing carbon emissions. According to a paper named
Millennium goals, which was published by the university of Sussex, stated, “it has
become more apparent that the poorer nations will continue to become exposed to
extreme weather events and the impacts of climate change”. The concepts that were
discussed by the stakeholders in the climate change discussion were adaptation and
mitigation.
Perspective 1: From the perspective of developing countries their belief is that countries such as
Australia and the United States have breached the laws that were instated at the
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on human environment. According to
(Keely Blom, 2012), “ it is not the duty of small islands such as Palau to take the
blame for the issues that are caused by the wealthier countries. As a result they
had to resort to other measures in order to make sure that they are protected and
not caught up in the debates of the richer countries. Countries such as Australia
should be practicing the principal of Human equality. An example of common good
that these countries can demonstrate is by taking up the cost and instead of allowing
the poorer nations to pay for tax they should take up the most responsibility due to
the fact that they are ultimately responsible for emitting a high amount of carbon
dioxide. Human flourishing demands that we cannot work on our own we need the
helps of others in order to bring about the common good. The principals that are
closely related to this is participation and service. Participation in terms of this issue
is that the wealthier nations mainly the United States and Australia should
participate in the decisions that affect the lives of the people in Palau, because we are
at the end of the day stewards of Gods creation who are called to look after the things
he places in our hands with responsibility. The participation by involving the
community will allow each person to take responsibility for their actions and in turn
help them recognize their human rights and abilities to change the environment
around them. The policies that are implemented by the countries will be based on the
solidarity of both parties. But participation alone is not enough because people in
wealthier nations still get to decide who can participate and it leaves the small
islands like Palau with no say at all. In the end they have to pay taxes even when they
are not the main contributors of the greenhouse emissions. Another principal that
can be applied to the issue of climate change is service. Service is mainly based on
government being able to improve the circumstances of others and not just being
there for power and wealth. Governments have the responsibility to God as the main
source of authority and secondly to the people who reside in the country. This is the
correct way in which power should be used to serve the common good of the person,
which relates to the CST teachings.
From the Christian perspective they believe that human flourishing in relation to
climate change that it is our responsibility to develop a right relationship with God,
creatures’, humans and others. The framework of Christianity often thrives on being
rational, not atomized consumers of utility. We as a Christian community need to
establish a relationship with God as our ultimate source and destination, and be an example to others so that they can implement those principals of common good to
promote a better future for the next generations. Firstly, human flourishing depends
on the quality of goods. There is a limit to individual well being in a larger social and
environmental setting in which others fail to survive which commons are
endangered. Where peace is at the wellbeing of the wealthier nations might be
defensible for a while, but I am unable to flourish indefinitely when others that are
suffering from the loss of their environment and resources. To be able to sustain
global and public goods essential to human flourishing is or should be the first
priority of development. Secondly, human flourishing should work hand in hand with
the stewardship of the world’s resources. As noted in the CST teaching is that there is
allot of emphasis on work and its relationship to working side by side with God and
others. The models and policies that are implemented by society should shift our
focus to the concern of others well being rather than taking their goods. Ultimately
our part in the stewardship of creation should start from our mindset. Lastly, human
flourishing works in partnership with social justice. We as people are petitioned to act justly and love mercy. Injustice ultimately results when we forget our
responsibilities to look after the poor and often reflect our relationship with God.
We are called according to Mark 12:31” to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.
Jesus demonstrated this principal by caring more about the needs of the poor rather
than his own.” by respecting the honesty of the distribution of resources which
ultimately depend on how we utilize these principals of common good. This is an
example that the government should follow so that dis advantaged people are not
affected by the effects of climate change. From the perspective of the International and intergovernmental their belief is that “
The parties (195 countries), should take responsibility to protect the climate system
for the benefit of the present and future generations of human kind, on the basis of
equity and in accordance to their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed countries should take the lead in
combating climate change and the side effects of it. The solution that the IPCC came
up with was that in order to prevent catastrophic climate change, global
temperatures increases had to be limited to a rise of 2 degrees Celsius. In order for it
to be a success concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere had to be below 350ppm. Both stakeholders acknowledged these limits at the UNFCCC in Copenhagen 2009,
but no implementation to the limit the amount of emissions was taken, this resulted
in the parties not coming to an agreement. The principals that align with this
perspective are solidarity, prudence, stewardship, and preferential option for the
poor. Pope Benedict XVI defined solidarity, as “the environment is Gods gift to
everyone, and in our use to it we have a responsibility towards the poor, towards the
future generations and humanity as a whole. In other words what pope benedict
meant is in order for policies to be implemented properly and function well in
society, preventing climate change they have to suite the needs of both classes of
society in order to bring about the common good. Policies should not affect the poor
to the extent that they aren’t able to look after their wellbeing. In the end my opinion
is that the poor should not be responsible for the decisions that are made by the
government, because ultimately in the end the government is the biggest culprit of
climate change. Pope Benedict XVI defined stewardship or cares for Gods creation as
upholding the environment through promoting a sustainable development by paying
attention to climate changes because it affects the matters of the whole society.
Ultimately, we will have to take into account how we will steward our societies so
that in the near future we can be able to pursue new goals and measures of success
even though in the same manner we face the same difficult challenges of the
changing climate and the switching over from using fossil fuels. Lastly, another
principle that was defined by Pope Benedict XVI is called prudence. Prudence is “ the
virtue that tells us of what needs to be done today in the view of what might
happen tomorrow.” This principle when put into action requires that we as a people
should respect the predictions of the scientific authorities simply by paying
attention. A study conducted by the USCCB in 2001, prudence is a very essential
principle in order to combat climate change because it affects the poor, our society
and the future of the next generation. Through the use of scientific data we will be
able to determine the effects of climate change on our environment and come up
with solutions to the cause of this problem before its too late.
To conclude, the only way that climate change can be combated is through the use of
principles such as solidarity, prudence, preferential option for the poor and simply
valuing the rights of all humans in society. Ultimately the only thing that can prevent
the effects of climate change is by providing education to the younger generations so
that too can make a difference in their environments. Candidates who determine the
policies should consider how the plans would benefit the shared resources and the
common ecological future. Wealthier countries such as the United States and
Australia should be encouraged to move past the focus of understanding the climate
within a global framework. Climate change challenges stakeholder and countries to
work together in order to combat this issue by raising their focus to the long-‐term
sustainability on security and the development of humans in the global community.
Stakeholders who are aware of the links between the health of the natural world and
wellbeing of human communities will become good leaders. If stakeholders don’t
take a responsibility to try and combat climate change the ones that will be affect the
most is the poor. Ultimately, by providing education to the communities and the
people in developing countries we are in turn practicing the principal of common
good. Knowledge is power and this might change our view on climate change and
possibly reverse or decrease the carbon emissions in our environment.
Referencing: Australian Academy of Science, “The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers” (2010), 16. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, “Technical Summary,” (Cambridge University Press, 2001), 71. E Ostrom (1990), Governing the Commons, Cambridge UP: Cambridge Edward Deberri et al. Catholic Social Teaching, Our Best Kept Secret. 2003. http://unfccc.int/adaptation/items/7006.php#Stakeholder IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 7-‐22.
IPCC documents are available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ Keely Blom, See you in court: the rising tide of international climate litigation, 2011, retrieved from https://theconversation.com/see-‐you-‐in-‐court-‐the-‐rising-‐tide-‐of-‐ international-‐climate-‐litigation-‐3542 Paul Collier, The Bottom Billion, Why the Poor Countries are Failing and What Can be Done About it (Oxford University Press, 2008).
Pope John Paul II, The Ecological Crisis: A Common Responsibility, (U. S. Catholic Conference, 1999)
Prudence, poverty, the common good and solidarity Prof. Kurt Lambeck, Australian academy of science, The science of climate change 2010, retrieved from http://science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Tearfund (2009a), Conflict, near-‐collapse and chaos in Copenhagen, Tearfund: London, Dec. 2009 http://unfccc.int/adaptation/items/7006.php#Stakeholder 