Should climate change be viewed as a problem of national security or justice?

Should climate change be viewed as a problem of national security or justice?

Climate change should be viewed as a problem of justice. The people who are going to be most affected by climate change are the people who have done the least to cause it. The people who are going to be most affected by climate change are the people who are going to suffer the most. Climate change is a problem of justice because it is a problem of inequality.

What is climate change?

Climate change is the gradual change in Earth’s climate over many decades or centuries resulting from the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Climate change is a global problem that requires a global response. It is caused by human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. These activities release carbon dioxide (CO2), which traps sunlight and causes Earth’s temperature to rise. This increase in temperature can cause serious problems for humans and wildlife, including floods, hurricanes, drought, displacement of species, and increased vulnerability to extreme weather events.

The consequences of climate change

Climate change has significant consequences on every living soul all around the globe. The most immediate consequence is that people will be affected by more extreme weather events, like floods and hurricanes. Climate change also causes sea levels to rise, which makes coastal communities vulnerable to flooding and erosion. It also causes drought, which can lead to food shortages and increased poverty. Climate change also causes diseases to spread, like malaria, which can kill many people. In total, climate change has a number of significant consequences that will vary depending on where people live and what kind of environment they are used to. However, all of these consequences are serious and will have an impact on human lives.

Climate refugees

Adaptationists are not interested in climate mitigation instead they believe that states must defend themselves against the changes that climate threatens and they must improve their existing power position in a climate-changed world. Adaptationists can take advantage of climate change via militarizing borders against “climate refugees”, exploring arctic resources, and expanding shipping routes. Realist mitigationists on other hand believe that states must actively work to reduce their carbon footprints and greenhouse gas emissions. They see climate change as an opportunity to address other social ills, such as poverty and inequality, by creating jobs in renewable energy and forest expanding approaches. mitigationists also argue that tackling climate change will help protect the environment and human health.

Do realists see climate change as a problem of justice?

The realists’ questions rise regarding the reshaping the powers in a competition of renewable energies and fighting against potential threats of climate change. Is it the mineral supply chains of China, or the diversification of the petro-states? The mitigationists answer and argue that economic development and technological innovation will lead to emissions reductions from the energy sector. Whereas, there is a need for justice as it disproportionately affects poor countries and communities around the world. The problem of climate change has been exacerbated by the fact that wealthier countries have disproportionately contributed to greenhouse gas emissions over the past century, and are now responsible for significantly more than two-thirds of all emissions.

The Paris Agreement of 2015 aimed to achieve a goal of limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, and eventually to 1.5 degrees below preindustrial levels if possible. In order to meet this goal, it is important that all countries participate in the effort and work together towards common objectives.

Climate change problem of justice & the liberalism school of thought

Liberalism is a school of thought that stresses individuals’ rights and liberties. It is founded on the idea that people are rational and can be expected to act in their self-interest. Liberals believe that people should be allowed to make their own choices as long as they do not harm others. They also believe in a limited government that intervenes as little as possible in people’s lives.

The liberalism approach advocates organizational strategies to minimize carbon dioxide emissions and decarbonize economic activities. It is a form of “green capitalism”, and they believe that more radical change is not necessary. Whereas, corporations gaining more power regarding the global capitalist order will need to pay more focus on green capitalism.

In contrast to liberalism, the realist mitigationists believe that the problem of climate change is a problem of justice. People are destroying the planet and their own future while doing little to help those who are most vulnerable. The wealthy countries that caused the problem should be responsible for fixing it, not the developing world which is already suffering from poverty and environmental destruction.

Also Read

Mitigating the impact of climate change

Taxes and other mechanisms that generate revenue from carbon emissions are an important part of any climate policy, but they alone will not be enough to address the root causes of climate change. Achieving deep and rapid reductions in carbon emissions will require a wholesale transformation of the economy — something that is not possible using market-based mechanisms alone. One proposal for addressing this gap is Carbon Pricing without Redistribution Mechanisms (CPRM). Under this model, governments would set a price on carbon emissions, and the revenue from that price would be used to fund initiatives that reduce carbon emissions. CPRM has the potential to be a powerful tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as it can help to invent widespread changes in behaviour.

Climate change is a problem of justice and that requires advocating “System change” to address the roots of the climate crisis. Different forms of the framework including the Green New Deal, Ecosocialism, and Eco-Anarchism need to be considered because, together, these frameworks present a powerful vision of what is necessary to address the climate crisis.

The Green New Deal framework focuses on the need for massive economic restructuring in order to address the root causes of climate change. Ecosocialism focuses on the need for social and environmental justice, advocating for a society that is “both ecological and equitable.” Eco-Anarchism calls for a society based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid, where people are free to pursue their own self-interest without government interference. Each of these frameworks offers unique insights into how we can achieve systemic change to address the roots of the climate crisis. Together, they offer a comprehensive plan for the transformation of our economy and society in order to address the climate crisis. Together, these frameworks present a powerful vision of what is necessary to address the climate crisis.

To wrap-up

Each of these frameworks offers a different way of understanding the root causes of climate change and the actions necessary to address them. world leaders and social entities need all of these frameworks to build the mass movement necessary to address the climate crisis and mitigate risks of climate change considering the fact that climate change is viewed as a problem of justice.

Related posts