There are two particularly challenging issues
within ecological justice: (1) Who are we talking
about when we discuss ecological justice?
(2) How and why are these entities morally relevant? To answer the first question, “species, ecosystems, nonconscious living organisms, and
conscious, sentient animals” are the candidates
for inclusion in ethical decision-making ([228],
p. 274). The second question attempts to answer
which parts of nature should be treated as morally
considerable and why [184]. Those beings that are
morally considerable should be included in our
ethical thinking and decision-making. There are
several schools of thought within environmental
ethics that present arguments as to which aspects
of the natural world qualify as being morally
considerable. For example, individualistic theories often attempt to justify why specific individual animals are worthy of our moral attention
[229, 230]. Biocentric theories [185] consider all
life as morally considerable, whereas ecocentric
theories [177] see ecological wholes, such as ecosystems or even the entire biosphere, as deserving
moral consideration.
Climate change will likely introduce new complexities to the ethical analyses of environmental
costs and benefits, and these will in turn effect
ecological justice. Completely new species and
ecosystems are continually coming into existence,
and to the extent climate change is anthropogenic,
this creates new obligations within the humannature relationship [156]. Are humans, for example, morally responsible for having introduced
exotic species to indigenous ecosystems? If so,
are humans responsible for their removal and the
restoration of native ecosystems? How should
such restoration be performed? Would killing the
introduced exotic species count as an injustice?
Even though there are aspects of environmental
morality that will fall into already existing doctrines (e.g., utilitarianism), not all answers to the
moral challenges of anthropogenic climate change
will be simple or easy to resolve.
Ethical Implications of Preservation
Preservation often attempts to preserve and protect
a “wild” nature that is independent of humans and
often considered the “opposite of civilization.”
However, the goal of preservation begs the problematic question of wilderness, a pristine state
where people are absent. Thinking of nature in
this way, a nonhuman wilderness, has been termed
the “received wilderness idea” [175]. This idea has
received a lot of attention from environmental philosophers [174]. An obviously related question is
whether humans are separator or one of many parts
of the ecosystem.
The perceived wilderness idea has been criticized in a number of areas: for failing to preserve
wilderness, for conflicting with attempts to preserve biodiversity, for being “historically and ecologically naïve,” and for being a “colonial,
imperialistic, unjust practice which harms people,” including the very concept of wilderness
being charged for being “androcentric, ethnocentric, Eurocentric, and racist” to name a few ([175],
pp. 11–12). In addition, the emergence of the
Anthropocene has been seen as making the idea
of wilderness problematic and even meaningless.
Despite this long list of criticisms, the preservation of wilderness has been defended by many philosophers and environmental practitioners [175–
178]. For instance, philosopher Mark Woods has
constructed a detailed account defending wilderness
as a meaningful concept and as an important preservation goal, by developing a “wilderness ethic
grounded in other-than-human naturalness, wildness,
and freedom” ([175], p. 266). Ecologist Reed Noss,
on the other hand, has defended wilderness by urging
that the wilderness ideal should be incorporated into
“a broader vision of recovered but dynamic landscapes dominated by wildland but complemented by
true civilization” [179]. According to Noss, what
separates humans from nature is human culture,
with its currently unsustainable lifestyles.
Ethical Implications of Ecological Restoration
Despite the goal of ecological restoration to repair
damage caused by human impact, ecological restoration has received criticism from environmental
philosophers. The criticism has been centered on
the goals of ecological restoration projects. The
philosophical debate surrounding ecological restoration was introduced by philosopher Robert Elliot
in the article Faking Nature [66]. In the article,
Elliot presents fundamental and problematic issues
314
Air Pollution and Climate Change: Sustainability, Restoration, and Ethical Implications
within ecological justice: (1) Who are we talking
about when we discuss ecological justice?
(2) How and why are these entities morally relevant? To answer the first question, “species, ecosystems, nonconscious living organisms, and
conscious, sentient animals” are the candidates
for inclusion in ethical decision-making ([228],
p. 274). The second question attempts to answer
which parts of nature should be treated as morally
considerable and why [184]. Those beings that are
morally considerable should be included in our
ethical thinking and decision-making. There are
several schools of thought within environmental
ethics that present arguments as to which aspects
of the natural world qualify as being morally
considerable. For example, individualistic theories often attempt to justify why specific individual animals are worthy of our moral attention
[229, 230]. Biocentric theories [185] consider all
life as morally considerable, whereas ecocentric
theories [177] see ecological wholes, such as ecosystems or even the entire biosphere, as deserving
moral consideration.
Climate change will likely introduce new complexities to the ethical analyses of environmental
costs and benefits, and these will in turn effect
ecological justice. Completely new species and
ecosystems are continually coming into existence,
and to the extent climate change is anthropogenic,
this creates new obligations within the humannature relationship [156]. Are humans, for example, morally responsible for having introduced
exotic species to indigenous ecosystems? If so,
are humans responsible for their removal and the
restoration of native ecosystems? How should
such restoration be performed? Would killing the
introduced exotic species count as an injustice?
Even though there are aspects of environmental
morality that will fall into already existing doctrines (e.g., utilitarianism), not all answers to the
moral challenges of anthropogenic climate change
will be simple or easy to resolve.
Ethical Implications of Preservation
Preservation often attempts to preserve and protect
a “wild” nature that is independent of humans and
often considered the “opposite of civilization.”
However, the goal of preservation begs the problematic question of wilderness, a pristine state
where people are absent. Thinking of nature in
this way, a nonhuman wilderness, has been termed
the “received wilderness idea” [175]. This idea has
received a lot of attention from environmental philosophers [174]. An obviously related question is
whether humans are separator or one of many parts
of the ecosystem.
The perceived wilderness idea has been criticized in a number of areas: for failing to preserve
wilderness, for conflicting with attempts to preserve biodiversity, for being “historically and ecologically naïve,” and for being a “colonial,
imperialistic, unjust practice which harms people,” including the very concept of wilderness
being charged for being “androcentric, ethnocentric, Eurocentric, and racist” to name a few ([175],
pp. 11–12). In addition, the emergence of the
Anthropocene has been seen as making the idea
of wilderness problematic and even meaningless.
Despite this long list of criticisms, the preservation of wilderness has been defended by many philosophers and environmental practitioners [175–
178]. For instance, philosopher Mark Woods has
constructed a detailed account defending wilderness
as a meaningful concept and as an important preservation goal, by developing a “wilderness ethic
grounded in other-than-human naturalness, wildness,
and freedom” ([175], p. 266). Ecologist Reed Noss,
on the other hand, has defended wilderness by urging
that the wilderness ideal should be incorporated into
“a broader vision of recovered but dynamic landscapes dominated by wildland but complemented by
true civilization” [179]. According to Noss, what
separates humans from nature is human culture,
with its currently unsustainable lifestyles.
Ethical Implications of Ecological Restoration
Despite the goal of ecological restoration to repair
damage caused by human impact, ecological restoration has received criticism from environmental
philosophers. The criticism has been centered on
the goals of ecological restoration projects. The
philosophical debate surrounding ecological restoration was introduced by philosopher Robert Elliot
in the article Faking Nature [66]. In the article,
Elliot presents fundamental and problematic issues
314
Air Pollution and Climate Change: Sustainability, Restoration, and Ethical Implications