Ethical Policy towards the Environment - Case Study Example

Executive Summary

Climate change is an emerging issue affecting organizations and countries throughout the world. The Environmental System and Governance Organization needs to make changes to its current ethics policy in order to tackle the emerging climate change issues in relation to human rights. Climate change concerns everyone, although its effects are disproportionate. During the setting up of the current policy, there was no explicit consideration of the need to protect human rights. Several approaches can be implemented in the new policy, such as adaptation and mitigation strategies.

Problem Analysis

Climate change is considered a socio-ecologic, economic, and environmental threat which causes a violation of human rights, especially against the marginalized groups and poor people. Climate change has typically been taken up as a phenomenon that is highly anthropogenic, unequivocal, and accelerating (Posner and Weisbach 2010, p.11). It is strengthening the frequency and intensity of adverse weather conditions such as tornadoes, floods, droughts, storms, and heatwaves. In turn, the extreme weather conditions have profound effects on human rights and human development (Page 2007, p.12). Indigenous people's and women's rights, as well as the general rights to self-determination, life, culture, adequate housing, food, water, and health, are all impacted by climate change.

Global climate change significantly affects the current times. Drastic changes to the climate system of the planet are already affecting the inhabitants of the world, together with its natural environment. Over recent times, several nations have encountered high records of high temperatures (Paavola and Adger 2006, p.595). For instance, regions such as Southeast Asia, Eastern, and Central Europe and North Africa have recorded high temperatures in recent years. Notably, parts of Europe and Russia also received unprecedented heatwave (Wiener 2007, p.1805).

The events surrounding climate change, in addition to their consequences and causes, raise questions regarding human rights and justice. Climate change concerns everyone, although it disproportionately affects those with the least contribution to it as well as those least placed to respond (Thomas and Twyman 2005, p.120). On the contrary, the largest contributors to global climate change, that is those with highest carbon footprints, working and living in the earth's wealthier locations, are by the benefit of their access to resources and wealth, most shielded from it (Adger et al. 2006, p.13). The fundamental concern for climate change justice is exacerbated since climate change will stress the capability of most nations, especially the poorest states, to uphold human rights obligations (Levy and Patz 2015, p.310). Ideally, climate change emerges as an effective hindrance to the continued advancement of human rights, which directly translates into a deteriorating of the prevailing inequities which afflict the world already struck by conflict, inequality, and poverty.

Additionally, as a concept, climate change justice, also referred to as climate justice, pays attention to the disproportionate effect of climate change on people with less capability to respond, prevent or adapt to increasingly adverse weather conditions, new resource constraints and rising water levels (Posner and Sunstein 2007, p.1565). A climate-justice brief embraces the conscious understanding of development imbalances caused by climate change (Parks, B.C. and Roberts 2010, p.135). Furthermore, a brief on climate justice tries to merge the discussion on climate change with human rights, especially in an equitable way for most vulnerable groups affected by climate.

Critique of Current Policy

During the setting up of the current policy, the main agenda was to provide protection against state authorities and autocratic states majorly governments which abuse and violate human rights. At that time, there was no explicit consideration of the need to protect human rights against the effects of rising sea levels, natural disasters, desertification or floods (Gardiner 2004, p.560). As such, the violators or perpetrators of human rights due to climate change fail to be clearly identified o named (Schlosberg and Collins 2014, p.363). In this case, it is difficult to identify who should take the responsibility for the violations of human rights and who should answer for the effects of climate change.

Consequently, adaptation and mitigation policies also raise justice concerns. For example, the primary aim of mitigation policies is to reduce GHG emissions, although efforts towards the limitations need to consider the developmental goals of poor countries. Furthermore, some measures which were set up with the aim of helping mitigation have also raised concerns regarding human rights in practice (Moellendorf 2015, p.165). While several least developed nations have now set up national adaptation programs of actions which includes identifying activities to tackle the most urgent adaptation necessities, there has been slow funding which is necessary for these countries (Caney 2005, p.747). Therefore, the issue of climate change justice is a serious issue but the previous policies have failed to highlight the necessity of taking into account the human rights concern.

The landscape of climate change justice is decentralized and fragmented, partly as a result of the challenge of attaining agreement on tackling climate change, and partly due to the several regions of relevant legal activity. Furthermore, the decentralization and fragmentation occurs due to the complexity and breadth of economic activity and general development (Sunstein 2007, p.1623). Numerous areas of law are valid to the problems arising due to climate change, although the current law was not set up while taking into account climate change; hence, it is not suited to tackle it at all times.

At first glance, the present generation might appear to take the responsibility of climate change because the existing people together with institutions where they belong, are the sole agents who have the capability of acting to prevent adverse climate change. The past generations might have been negligent in their rise of greenhouses gases among them carbon, but are now inexistent and leave behind a major problem which requires future generations to tackle and seems grossly unfair. However, allocating the accountability to the current generation, simply postpones the current problem that there exists a broad set of existing agents which might be responsible for responsibilities of justice, such as institutional corporations, multinational institutions as well as the existing generation. The current policy also fails in addressing the more real issue of the degree of demand put on the agents. Therefore, climate change poses a profound degree of burden allocation and level of analysis (Page 2008, p.461). Furthermore, confronted with the issue of the human agency level responsible for dealing with climate change, much of the current policy emphasizes on the peculiar responsibility of the developed society.

Policy Recommendations

The consequences of climate change on human rights require a quick response with the goal of treating all people equally as well as upholding human rights in light of the numerous threats posed by drastic climate change. Some of the threats arise independent of people’s gender, religious background, discriminatory background or citizenship. Therefore, the organizations needs to regard climate change justice as an opportunity for world human rights since private actors as well as the government and civil society need to work in association to tackle the effects and find answers jointly through global standards means (Shue 1995, p.453).

In as much as liabilities are yet to be identified, the initial step for the organization to attain climate justice would involve identification of duty-bearers who take the responsibilities for the impacts and causes of climate change (Jamieson 2010, p.435). While identification of potential liability of the organization, may still be young, the issue will need to be highly considered. For instance, if natural forces, either directly or indirectly associated with climate change result in the violation of human rights, then the stakeholders or duty-bearers needs to be held responsible for the violations.

Consequently, strategies to tackle climate change may come in two major forms. Mitigation is the first strategy that the organization might put in place which involves measures aimed at limiting greenhouse gases either through reducing the sources of the GHG gases or enhancing the capacity of the planet to absorb them, for example, oceans, or forests (Schuppert 2011, p.303). Adaptation is the second strategy which involves adjusting the human or natural systems to a changing or new environment to exploit beneficial opportunities or moderate harm.

There is need for adaptation measures to grapple with several human security threats resulting from climate change, such as environmental security, global security, food security, territorial sovereignty and health security (Vanderheiden 2008). Adaptation law on climate change would be necessary as it would aim at increasing the capacity of human beings, the ecosystem, other species and society to adapt to the incessant changing of the environment (Frisch 2012, p.233). Socially, politically and economically marginalized groups in developed societies have the least adaptive capacity; hence, requires concerted and combined effort to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Previously, the EGSO has laws which are used to suppress climate change justice. However, the organization might need laws which strengthen climate change justice. While it may be easy to list reasons for the failure of current legal systems to cope with emerging climate problems, or reasons for the existing laws not meant to climate change. Considering the challenges identified, the organization needs greater legal responsibilities that multinational companies need to adopt to mitigate emission of greenhouse gases and improve climate change justice (Duus-Otterström and Jagers 2012, p.750). Furthermore, the organization may employ a taskforce to explore the increasingly opportunistic legal reforms such as using regional instruments and human rights bodies to clarify human rights. Another recommendation would be adapting or mitigating climate change using geo-engineering which is increasingly prevalent including sequestration and ocean-based carbon capture as well as ocean fertilization which involves increasing phytoplankton in oceans by adding nutrients hence reduce carbon (IV) oxide in the atmosphere (Kretz 2012, p.16). Additionally, the taskforce put in place would strongly endorse works set up maritime organizations.

Consequently, EGSO would involve regulation of oceanic geo-engineering among its leading efforts. The regulation would comprise formal recognition of precautionary principles. In view of this, the organization could consider adopting amendments which seek for regulation of ocean fertilization such as frameworks involving scientific research of ocean fertilizations (Vandenbergh 2007, p.905). In this regard, the task force could applaud the adopted efforts as well as recommend that the organization accede to the measures and adopt necessary regulations. In the meanwhile, the task force could comply with the previous assessment framework (Posner and Sunstein 2009, p.51). Subsequently, to help in regulation of emergent geo-engineering, the organization could recommend that the company works towards the development of legal obligations in relation to governing research, developing and implementing solar radiation management.

With regard to the problem of food security, the organization may need to appoint a working group which would need to identify and examine law pertinent to food security in relation to climate change, taking into account, making recommendations. The recommendations would include how to incorporate a right-based framework into climate change justice (Lindley et al. 2011, p.120). The approach may encompass an evaluation of existing legal protections associated with food security as well as how they might be utilized and fortified to inform approaches based human rights to policy-making relating to climate change (Farber 2008, p.377). Moreover, with respect to transfer of technology, the working appoint which has been appointed could consider issues such as how trade and environmental regimes might be conformed with each other in order to promote transfer of technology, and how the legal community can facilitate and promote cooperation among several stakeholders (Page 2011). Without forgetting, the working group could consider how the law framework might be reformed to incentive innovation while also facilitating climate change justice.

Given the complexity and number of possible concerns towards climate change justice, the appointed task force could consider undertaking to evaluate the aim of climate change justice, while paying critical concern to human rights (Paavola and Adger 2002, p.37). Ideally, comprehending the implications of human rights as a result of climate change gives room for an in-depth appreciation of the effect of climate change adaption and mitigation policies (Miller 2009, p.28). The aforementioned approach elucidates policy-making by exemplifying the actual harms and causes of climate change including the harms experienced throughout the world, although there are numerous devastating effects for the vulnerable (Harris 2011).