Essay Sample on Climate Change: A Moral Obligation

Climate change is one of the most argued and time-pressing issues we as a society are facing. With rising temperatures and sea levels, depleting air and water quality, and an overall increase in global carbon emissions. 

In this paper I will be arguing that we as a society hold a moral obligation to protect and preserve the environment not just with our voting power but in our everyday lives, using the arguments of Marion Hourdequin. Those who oppose see that we as a society hold no personal obligation and our individual actions are not as important as our actions through voting and politics, using the works of Walter Sinnot-Armstrong and William F. Baxter to voice the arguments of the opposition. 

First I will define key terms that will be used throughout this paper. What is climate change? The United Nations defines it as  “long term shifts in temperature and weather pattern”. Direct moral standing is what a being/individual is owed because of the kind of being it is. Anthropocentrism is the moral thinking that humans and only humans have direct moral standing. Moral integrity has two central meanings: the first; integration: when an agent’s commitment is well-integrated, there's a unity among her other commitments, and the second, being integral: our commitments should be fully integrated into our lives and actions. When a commitment is fully integral, we act on it without deliberating on it. 

Hourdequin argues the idea of integrity. Since she is a consequentialist She sees that we hold a moral obligation to integrate our beliefs into our personal lives to reduce emissions. Hourdequin agrees with Sinnot-Armstrong that you must take political action but refutes the claim that only political action is morally needed to be done. She argues that since you are committed to doing something about climate change you are morally obligated to reduce your personal emissions. An individual with integrity will go the extra mile and harmonize their comments within different areas of their life. Meaning someone who holds a political commitment to reduce emissions will do what they can to reduce their personal emissions. 

But Sinnot-Armstrong argues that integrity requires no such thing! He sees that a political level holds (or probably will) positive consequences. Acts on the personal level are likely to have no consequence at all. Baxter argues the entire notion of right and wrong is unique to humans. He states that there is no balance of nature we need to respect since there is no correct state of nature to which we must return to. He has four people-oriented criteria when solving a problem: The spheres of freedom, no waste, dignity and respect, and preservation. He does see that his argument is “undeniably selfish” (Baxter,730) because it follows anthropocentrism. 

Hourdequin further explains that our personal actions, while they may not have any effect alone, have the ability to influence and inspire the personal actions of others. Similar to “Bike to Work Day”. She sees that any act done to reduce emissions can hold a symbolic effect. It's hypocritical to say we only need to vote for legislation to assist in combating global warming and climate change and not abide by those beliefs we hold. You have to “practice what you preach”. As it’ll make those around us think if we don't practice what we are aiming to do why should they. A great example of this is former vice president Al Gore’s global warming presentations, known as “the Al Gore Effect”, he traveled to speak to people on reducing their energy usage and advocated for individuals to change their behaviors about climate change, while at the same time he was flying in private jets and driving all over the U.S. to do so. 

Though I agree with Hourdequin there are many aspects of living green that are simply not accessible. There are deeply rooted issues within many green movements that overlook individuals with disabilities, living in poverty, the homeless, etc. We must work to make these personal actions doable for everyone. We must also hold corporations accountable, as they account for 630 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year (Axelrod). 

Climate change will never be resolved till we begin to take action both politically and personally. In doing so we can inspire the actions of those around us. It may seem personal action alone will do nothing, we hold a moral obligation to preserve the environment. We need to begin holding everyone accountable.