Environmental Racism, Climate Change, - Essay Example

Environmental Racism, Climate Change Question 3 Environmental racism can be defined as the disproportionate effect of environmental hazardous material on people based on color. Other scholars define it as the practice, policy, or directive that disproportionately impacts on communities, individuals, or groups based on their color. For instance, the location of waste disposal facilities like municipal landfills, hazardous waste treatment, and incinerators, and disposal facilities owned by government, private industry, even the military near areas of low-income earners based on communities, individuals, or groups based on their color.

The only remedy to address environmental racism is through environment justice, which promotes environmental, social, and economic justice. In my view, environment justice is better because it advocates for public policy to be based on justice, and mutual respect for all regardless of color.Question 4. bLegal Pragmatism is a philosophical approach that tries to infuse methods, and precepts of Pragmatic thinking to the legal theory. The pros of legal pragmatism include, the attitudes and methods of pragmatic thought are good for public environmental decisions making; it focuses on the accomplishment of social ends and social justice through advocating for judicial adherence to the interpretations of environmental statutes; it focuses on innovation and experimentation to problem solving (Singer, 2002).

The cons of legal Pragmatism include, it lacks certain marquee values because of its insistence on practicability, recognition for social needs and innovation and sensitivity to facts. Either because for its insistence on pluralistic, experimentation, and experiential learning it can fail to provide the right answers to good disputed environmental questions.Environmental Pragmatism tries to connect the methods, and precepts of philosophical Pragmatism to find a solution to the real world environmental issues.

In view of this, there is thus an intersection with legal pragmatism in that they both advocate for methods, and precepts of philosophical Pragmatism. In my view, a pragmatic perspective would have a better outcome given its insistence on experimentation, concrete facts, flexibility, and practical, workable solutions combined with democratic consensus can offer better outcomes.Question 5Stephen Gardiner gives the problem of environmental climate change a different approach. He considers the problem as ethical failure due to failed action by humans to confront this catastrophe.

He identifies the storms or temptations that make human vulnerable to this kind of corruption like: the world’s developed countries often get tempted to pass these costs of climate change to the weaker and poorer citizens; the current generation gets tempted to pass on the problem to future generations. Lastly, our little adoption, innovation and appreciation of science, the human and nature relationship, and international justice helps facilitate this inaction of confronting this catastrophe.

Ultimately, because of this inaction, we are engaging in deliberate self-deception when the future generations’ lives, the world poor, and the life on this earth are at stake. To avoid this calamity, our leaders, institutions, and ourselves, we must come out and confront the problem to save all that is at stake. In my view, I think Gardiner is right. The problem of climate change is an issue of an ethical nature that requires us all to take responsibility and save this planet from problems of global warming for the sake of the future generations.

Either the most affluent nations of the world that are shifting this problem to poor nations should come out and in one voice we confront this problem of environmental climate change before the problem gets out of hand.Works CitedSinger, P. ‘One Atmosphere’. In Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Glo­balization 2002. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press: Pdf.