Our Moral Obligation to Future Generations with Respect to Climate Change

Do we have a moral obligation to future generations to address the effects of climate

change? Before being able to answer such a question, one must first agree that climate change is

real. To that notion, the science is quite clear. Our generation has been witness to weather

phenomena that continues to increase in strength and number. From droughts to floods, and

every record-breaking storm in between, our environment appears to be in a state of interminable

crisis. Let us not forget the wildfires that have plagued the earth that grew so large they were

visible in space! Our generation has been witness to weather phenomena that continues to

increase in strength and number that supports that climate change is a very real problem (Lilly,

2016). While the evidence exists to support that climate change is indeed alive and well, what

remains an age-old question is whether we as human beings are responsible for it?

While human beings and our love for fossil fuels, cannot be irrefutably tied to

snowpocalypes, super storms, or the Polar Vortex, there are plenty of industrial environmental

disasters that human beings cannot deny culpability. A few of the most notable disasters that

were at the hands of human beings that have helped to solidify the environmental crisis of our

current generation include the Exxon Valdez oil spill (1989), the Tennessee coal ash spill (2008),

and the Deep Water Horizon BP oil spill (2010) (Lilly, 2016). Many scientists and

environmentalists would argue that our current state of affairs with respect to climate change,

can almost exclusively be tied to human beings.

In 2004 American historian of science, Naomi Oreskes, conducted a survey to see how

much of the scientific community agreed that global warming was caused by humans. Oreskes
(2004) did this by surveying all peer-reviewed on the subject of climate change on a global level

that were published between 1993 and 2003. After analyzing 928 papers listed on the

International Scientific Indexing (ISI) database Oreskes (2004) concluded that 75% of the papers

either explicitly or implicitly accepted the theory while the other 25% took no stance.

“Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” (Oreskes, 2004). This

type of study was done several more times over the next decade, each time having slightly

different results yet never dropping below 90% acceptance among all peer-reviewed journals.

By now, we can reasonably infer that climate change is in fact a real threat to our planet

and that human beings have contributed considerably. In 1970, humans were responsible for the

emission of twenty-seven billion tons of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Also, between

1970 and 2000, greenhouse emissions from human activities increases by an average of 1.3

percent each year (Armstrong, Krasny, and Shuldt, 2018). Fast forward to this century, and one

will find a unique correlation; While we as human beings, have a greater understanding of how

our actions impact climate change, instead of seeing responsible usage and a decrease in

emissions, we see quite the opposite. By 2010, humans were emitting forty-nine billion tons of

greenhouse gases per year, an increase of twenty-two billion from our 1970 counterparts. Also,

between 2000 and 2010, emissions increased by an average of 2.2 percent per person, which was

also an increase from our 1970 selves (Armstrong et al., 2016). How can we charge this

generation with the importance of upholding our moral obligation to future generations, when it

was not done for us?

If we are indeed the cause of such a perpetual environmental crisis of our day, are we not

morally obligated to do all we can to rectify some of our bad choices for our children and

grandchildren? I believe we are most certainly morally obligated to care for our planet in such a
way that our future generations can enjoy it as much or more than the generations before them.

Convincing the human race of such moral obligation however, has proven to be no easy feat.

Unfortunately, human beings do not have the shared belief that we are the caretakers of our

planet, and that as caretakers, we must be intentional stewards of the environment.

Former United States Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, states that “dealing with

climate change is not only a central challenge of the 21st century, but it is also a moral obligation

and a necessity to advance our nation’s economy, environment, and public health.” (Jewell,

2014). While one can find many statements in support of the moral obligation to future

generations with respect to climate change, Ms. Jewell’s statement has the power of promise.

This statement addresses more than just the environment, which by many standards just is not

enough to excite a sense of urgency or call to action for human beings. The weight of her

statement is in reference to the health and financial prosperity of our children and grandchildren.

Many people can overlook a call to action and a moral obligation to help future generations with

respect to climate change, but those same people may be much more passionate about their moral

obligations for future generations with respect to the economy and public health.

I believe Ms. Jewell said it best, but how can her words incite a call to action for our

moral obligation to future generations? How can we disseminate this information to the average

American for instance? I think it is reasonable to assume that the average citizen is not well

versed on the specifics of climate change, and that the sources of such factual information,

textbooks or peer reviewed journals, are not likely to be found on the coffee tables of most

Americans. Therein lies part of our problem; a lack of credible information. If we are to charge

this generation with being morally obligated to protect our planet for future generations, we must

find ways to share this information or it can never be a shared responsibility or a shared fight.
 The media must play a key role in how this information is presented to the general public.

Armstrong et al. 2018 discuss the importance of the frame used to communicate about climate

change with respect to the media. Most adults in the United States learn about such issues as

climate change and other scientific issues from the media, which makes the examination of

media frames particularly important when consider this quite possibly has the largest scale

impact on how the general public chooses to act on the topic of climate change. The media has

historically tried a negative, doomsday approach when framing climate change, and while the

sensationalism may help to garner attention for the topic, very little has been presented to offer

the public meaningful solutions (Armstrong et al. 2018).

In order for the public to buy into the message that we have a moral obligation to future

generations with respect to climate change, it is imperative that the solutions presented address

meaningful issues, the economy and/or public safety for instance, and that these solutions be part

of a collective effort. While I believe appealing to a person’s moral compass is worthwhile, and

it may incite a response, I believe it is much more beneficial to appeal to a person’s moral

compass while also providing information as to how not acting will create large scale economic

and public safety concerns.

The World Health Organization’s director general has declared that climate change will

“rattle the foundations of public health” (Watts, Stott, and Rafferty (2015). The United Kingdom

has seen a rise in health professionals recognizing and tackling climate change from the

standpoint of being a public health concern. Climate change can affect human health both

directly and indirectly through a wide variety of means. Temperature extremes, air pollution,

increased allergens and allergic responses are a few that have been identified (Polivka, 2012).

Perhaps one of the scariest deleterious effects may be one that the average human being has
never even considered; extreme weather patterns and rising sea levels have potentially altered the

patterns of infectious diseases (Frumkin et al. 2008). Furthermore, climate change has the

potential to alter normal human development through harmful exposure to pesticides, algal

blooms, and malnutrition (McFarlane, 2010). Heat stress and drought will likely cause a

significant loss in crops and food production (McKibben 2009).

The UK alliance has identified several areas where immediate action is required in order

to combat the negative effects of climate change; improving air quality, increasing active

transport, ensuring healthier and more sustainable nutrition, and reducing the environmental

footprint of healthcare in the UK (Watts et al. 2016). The phrase eco-nursing was coined to

describe this type of proactive healthcare practice that places an emphasis on a solution mindset.

This type of solution-based media coverage could be quite effective in the United States,

seeing as how it appeals to healthcare professionals, who already have a vested interest in long

term public health, and it also has relevance to all Americans because of the individual health

implications. The average American puts a great deal of trust into healthcare professionals,

making this a worthwhile avenue to illicit a maximum public response.

Knowing what we know about the dangers of climate change on public health, one may

ask why more isn’t being done to combat this perpetual environmental crisis. Is this not enough

for our current generation to invest in the moral obligation to future generations?

Other than the misinformed or even uniformed public, another likely deterrent to action

could be cost. When considering the impact that climate change may have on the economy for

current citizens, as well as future generations, the information is daunting. The impacts of

climate change on the economy are diverse and plenty. Richard (2018) states that some of the
more deleterious effects climate change will have on our future economy include crops hit by

increasing and worsening droughts, crops growing faster because of carbon dioxide fertilization,

heat stress increases, cold stress increases, rise in sea levels, increasing demand for cooling,

decreasing demand for heating, infectious disease spreading, and species extinction. For the

purpose of this argument let us just focus on agriculture for now.

Porter et al (2014) estimates that climate change could reduce crop yields in Africa by up

to 50 percent. While agriculture in the United States is on a smaller scale, it is safe to assume that

it would continue to be an industry very vulnerable to climate change. As farmers work to

combat the effects of extreme weather patterns and lower crop yield, their costs and labor will

increase, which will cause an increase in prices for consumers across the globe.

As the old saying goes, if you want to hit someone where it hurts, hit them in their

pocketbook. Climate change and its impacts across the globe will likely do just that. The

financial effects are already being felt but may exponentially increase for future generations. The

Earth Institute states that climate change will threaten the bottom line of businesses in multiple

ways (Cho 2019). The increase of severe weather patterns in both intensity and frequency has the

potential to damage industry, supply chains, transportation, and other infrastructure costing

millions upon millions to repair.

We know that in order to combat the impact of climate change we must reduce the use of

fossil fuels. This in and of itself will likely have a significant impact on the economy, affecting

banks and industries alike. The argument for some may be that it is too expensive to switch to

alternative sources of power or that the conversion itself will create too high of a strain on the

economy, but what will the cost be if we do nothing? I don’t think we can afford to continue to
along this same path, using fossil fuels at an unsustainable rate. Change is not only suggested,

but it is necessary. We must find a way to shift our power usage.

The good news is that with the conversion to new energy sources, such as solar and wind

power, comes many new job opportunities. The Carbon Disclosure Project reported that 225 of

the world’s 500 largest companies could generate over 2.1 trillion dollars in new business

prospect from being a part of a solutions-based economy (Cho 2019). The possibilities in clean

energy and energy efficient, green buildings brings an ethical response to current businesses, as

well as hope and promise for our future generations. Construction of green infrastructure alone

could benefit us, as well as our children and grandchildren.

With respect to the media, this is yet another way to frame the communication regarding

climate change and our moral obligation. In reference to Ms. Jewell’s quote about our moral

obligation, I think she hit the nail on the head when she addressed the moral lens while also

discussing the rationale behind why. It is not enough to simply ask people to do the right thing

with respect to climate change. We have to communicate this need in such a way that the masses

understand the need is real and the time to act is now.

Based upon the current body of research on climate change, it is evident that a call to

action is needed. The evidence of potential health concerns should be enough to move people to

a solution-based mindset followed by a plan of action, but motivation has proved difficult. Our

environment is in a state of perpetual crisis, and we are responsible. The silver lining to this may

very well be that crises are times when people have historically rallied together for the greater

good. We must communicate the impacts of climate change to the public. The current

environmental crisis that we have helped cultivate should challenge our morality. Being passive
and doing nothing in a time of crisis is the same as failure. Let us rise to the challenge that this

crisis demands to improve not only our lives, but the lives of all those who follow.
 Works Citied

Cho, Renee, et al. “How Climate Change Impacts the Economy.” State of the Planet, 20

June 2019, https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/06/20/climate-change-economy-impacts/.

“CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE: The Facts.” Communicating Climate Change: A

Guide for Educators, by Anne K. Armstrong et al., Cornell University Press, ITHACA;

LONDON, 2018, pp. 720. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctv941wjn.5.

Frumkin, Howard et al. “Climate change: the public health response.” American journal

of public health vol. 98,3 (2008): 435-45. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.119362

Jewell, Sally. “Dealing with Climate Change: A Moral Obligation.” U.S. Department of

the Interior, 5 Sept. 2019, https://www.doi.gov/blog/dealing-with-climate-change-a-moral-

obligation.

Lilly, Ingrid Esther. “The Planet’s Apocalypse: The Rhetoric of Climate Change.”

Apocalypses in Context: Apocalyptic Currents through History, edited by Kelly J. Murphy and

Justin Jeffcoat Schedtler, Augsburg Fortress, Publishers, Minneapolis, 2016, pp. 359–380.

JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1b3t7n8.20.

McFarlane GJ. Climate change-the greatest public health threat of our time:seeing the

wood, not just the trees. Perspect Public Health. 2010;130 (1): 21-26.

McKibben, Bill. “Climate Change.” Foreign Policy, no. 170, 2009, pp. 32–38. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/25462376.
 National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate

Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington,

DC, 2001).

Oreskes, Naomi. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” Science, vol. 306, no.

5702, 2004, pp. 1686–1686. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3839754.

Polivka, Barbara J., et al. “Public Health Nurses' Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding

Climate Change.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 120, no. 3, 2012, pp. 321–325.

JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41460111.

Porter J. R., Xie L., Challinor A. J., Cochrane K., Howden S. M., Iqbal M. M., Lobell D.

B., Travasso M. I.. 2014. Food security and food production systems. In Climate Change 2014:

Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of

Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change , ed. Field C. B., Barros V. R., Dokken D. J., Mach K. J., Mastrandrea M. D., Bilir T. E.,

Chatterjee M., Ebi K. L., Estrada Y. O., Genova R. C., Girma B., Kissel E. S., Levy A. N.,

MacCracken S., Mastrandrea P. R., White L. L., 659–708. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Richard S J Tol, The Economic Impacts of Climate Change, Review of Environmental

Economics and Policy, Volume 12, Issue 1, Winter 2018, Pages 4–25,

https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rex027

Watts, Nick, et al. “Combating Climate Change.” BMJ: British Medical Journal, vol. 351,

2015. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26524579.