Everything is Connected...

How alarming must the predictions of scientists be before we act on their warnings? Furthermore, how much of our inaction stems from our apathetic viewpoints regarding not only our fading plant and animal life but the suffering of the world’s poor? Consistently striving for more, it seems we acquire less of value. Yes, we’ve reached the immoral age of gluttony and slothfulness. We may have passed two thresholds. The first threshold is scientific, and deals with the planet’s ability to recover from years of mistreatment. Once this threshold is passed, the return to a healthy planet may be impossible. The second threshold is psychological and economic, and speaks of our rate of consumption. Most simply, human beings need more—or at least think they need more—than both society and the planet are able to produce. Notice how the two thresholds affect one another. As we exceed the consumption threshold, we reach closer to the planet’s threshold. Thus, by consuming in a more ethical manner, it may be possible to prevent the planet from reaching the point of no return. Questions of how we may consume more ethically are abundant but are certainly answerable. Purchasing U.S. grown foods, abstaining from meat consumption—for science has shown that the meat industry is just as responsible as transportation—using renewable resources, avoidance of plastic and other unnecessary production (do we need plastic water bottles?), and so forth, are all ways to consume in a more ethical manner.
The motivation to make these changes should come from our care for human beings and other creatures. As noted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “it is the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people in even prosperous societies, who are going to be worst hit” (Environmental News Service). This is true for many reasons. First, economic deprivation entails the inability to react to climate change. While the rich will have the power to relocate and build more proper infrastructure, the poor can only sit and watch. Furthermore, the poor often live in the areas most susceptible to climate change effects. Island nations or other low lying lands will be the first to experience the numerous problems brought on by rising sea levels. Similarly, animals which are currently being impacted or will be impacted in the future by climate change are dependent upon human action to curtail this impact. As awareness of this problem becomes increasingly universal, the excuses for inaction become more limited. Certainly we can’t expect the world’s poor—including the poor living in affluent nations—to bring about the necessary changes. Therefore the responsibility falls into the hands of the wealthy (here wealthy refers to middle class and above). A sort of “double effect” is at play here. First, the wealthy are responsible for bringing about the necessary change because they can afford to. Second, the wealthy are responsible because they often benefit from the economic institutions which create and perpetuate poverty throughout the world. Thus, they are responsible because of their ability to bring about change and because they benefit from economic institutions which prevent the world’s poor from bringing about change. Therefore environmental concerns are simultaneously economic concerns, and both are vital concerns for human nature as we know it.