 |
| Professor Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize winner in Economics and the winner of the 2018 Sydney Peace Prize. |
It should be obvious that the threat of climate change is putting at risk their future—it has been obvious for a long time. It’s not just the increase in temperature and the rising sea level, it’s the accompanying increase in extreme weather events, such as floods, hurricanes and droughts that can also devastate harvests and cause forest fires. The acidification of the ocean will destroy coral reefs, including Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. As habitats get destroyed, so will species. Those in more temperate zones are already facing new diseases.
 |
| Approaches to climate change are being scrutinised. Credit: Jonathan Carroll |
Each of these 21 children will be affected not just by the economic burdens their generation will have to bear as cities relocate. One, Levi, lives on an island off the coast of Florida, and his island will be submerged. He will join millions of others around the world who will lose their homes—South Pacific islanders whose countries will disappear and Bangladeshis whose only asset, the land and house they own, will disappear. Levi will be relatively lucky: he will be able to move elsewhere in the US. But where will the millions of Bangladeshis go? Or the millions in sub-Saharan Africa who face the opposite threat, desertification of their lands?
These are not just ordinary “economic migrants”. Their right to a livelihood has been taken away by those elsewhere — in the US, Europe and China — whose greenhouse gas emissions, the result of unbridled consumption, is the prime cause of this climate change. Their “right to consume” is depriving others of the right to live.
Another plaintiff in the case, Alex, is a student at my university, Columbia. He lives on a farm in southern Oregon whose viability is undermined by climate change and is now threatened by forest fires.
So often when we see injustices like this, we say: “There ought to be a law.” The US Declaration of Independence spoke of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These children’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are being taken away because of greenhouse gas emissions. Their future is in jeopardy so Americans today can drive gas-guzzling cars. It seems unfair, and it is. It is a matter of social justice — this time between different generations.
 |
| The Western Arctic is one of the fastest-warming regions in the world and is seen as an early indicator of global climate change. Credit: AP |
I’m an expert witness in this case. I chaired an international commission that concluded that limiting temperature increases to 1.5C to 2CX, which the international community agreed to in Paris and Copenhagen, is achievable at a low cost, with a carbon price eventually rising to perhaps $US100 ($138) a ton of carbon, which translates into about 88 cents per gallon (3.78 litres) of gasoline, accompanied by some other regulatory measures.
Others have estimated that the increased energy costs would likely be no higher than 2 to 3 per cent of GDP, and eliminating the hundreds of billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies would actually save money. These costs pale in comparison to the multiple episodes when energy costs have increased far more, and in each of these instances our economy managed these increases. These numbers also pale in comparison to the likely costs of not taking action.
Government procedures for discounting future events mean that the wellbeing of future generations is systematically being downplayed. The Trump administration has been using a 7 per cent discount rate. That means that a dollar today is viewed as 32 times as valuable as a dollar spent 50 years from now. In essence, the Trump administration is saying, as are governments in some other countries, “Our children count for very little, and our children’s children count for essentially nothing.”
Climate change’s effects are long-lasting. Today’s pollution will affect our children’s children. No just society can simply ignore this. Conservative governments often make a big fuss over an increase in the fiscal deficit, saying it would impose a burden on our children. They’re wrong, at least if the money is well spent on investments in infrastructure, technology or education. But they’re hypocrites if they make such claims and do nothing about climate change.
It would be one thing if there were some other planet we could migrate to if, as the scientific evidence shows overwhelmingly, we ruin this planet with our continuing carbon emissions. But Earth is our only home. We need to cherish it, not destroy it.
Links
- These Kids And Young Adults Want Their Day In Court On Climate Change
- The Trial Of The Century
- Children Sue Washington State Over Climate Change
- Kids Around The World Are Suing Governments Over Climate Change—And It’s Working
- Australian Students Plan School Strikes To Protest Against Climate Inaction
- Why We're Striking From School Over Climate Change Inaction
- The Climate Litigation Threat Is Getting Credible
- Senior Environment Judge Brian Preston Tips Wave Of Climate Change Litigation
- The Public Trust Doctrine in Environmental and Natural Resources Law
- “No Ordinary Lawsuit”: Climate Change, Due Process, and the Public Trust Doctrine
- Doctrine of Public Trust
No comments :
Post a Comment