The Equivalence Between Environmentalism and Human Rights

There has been a great deal of press lately surrounding the UN’s Copenhagen conference. This conference is to hold a large role in cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. Mittelstaedt’s article explains that even with the conference so soon, Canada is yet to step up and take a leadership role in compliance with the agenda expressed by this conference in cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. The article goes on to explain the general dissatisfaction among Canadians towards this unsettling lack of environmental concern displayed by Canada.

Canada is a country known for its leadership when it comes to making sure the rights of all humans are being respected, but if Canada is not to take part in reducing their greenhouse-gas emissions, then what does that show about the amount of care Canada shows towards the rights of all of its citizens?

According to Beder (2006,) there is a principal in environmental sciences which addresses the relationship between human rights and concern for the environment. This human rights principle essentially describes the allowance of pollution as a chain reaction. First, pollution is allowed to occur, creating a negative impact on the environment. This environmental impact leads to other adverse affects on the earth, and in turn, us. So, by this logic, allowance of pollution in any way means allowance of (or at least risk of) harm to all humans residing on the planet, thus violating human rights.

This principle is easily applied to the issue concerning Canada’s lack of concern regarding greenhouse-gas emissions. Greenhouse-gasses released into the atmosphere contribute to a process known as “global warming” which consequently brings about climate change. Change in the earth’s climate inevitably changes the earth itself, and by changing the conditions of the earth, our health (as well as the health of all living things on the planet) is bound to be affected. Therefore, ignoring the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions means consequently ignoring every living thing on earth’s right to good health.

With all of this considered, it is no surprise that Canadians disapprove of the lack of leadership their country shows towards the reduction of harmful greenhouse-gas emissions. But the government’s decisions must be based on some reflection on the general population. According to Mittelstaedt (2009,) statistics show that the well being of the environment is ranked only as the third most important issue in Canada (below health care and the economy.) while the state of the economy and health care are very valid concerns, the more concerning part of all of this is that the study shows that only 12% of Canadians find the environment to be an important issue needing to be addressed (Mittelstaedt, 2009). If Canadians are expecting their government to take the state of the environment more seriously, maybe it is up to them to express concern first.

On the bright side, the first step in the solution to climate change is often said to be the realization of its existence, and according to Mittelstaedt (2009,) 72% of Canadians now see climate change as an issue which will become quite serious. If so many Canadians realize that this is an issue, this begs the question as to why so little find it worthwhile to address.


References

Mittelstaedt, Martin. "Canadians chagrined over status as climate-change dawdlers" News from Canada and the world - The Globe and Mail. 20 Nov. 2009. Web. 23 Nov. 2009. .

T, M. C. "US hangs back on climate change." Smh.com.au. 23 Nov. 2009. Web. 23 Nov. 2009. .

Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Minneapolis: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2006. Print.