How Long is One Generation Held Accountable for Another?

Bibliography

Inquiry: Do we have a moral obligation to protect the planet for people we will never
meet?
Proposed Thesis: With global warming as big of an issue as it is today, a growing
debate has emerged: do the people living today have a moral obligation to protect the
planet for people that may or may not be around a few millennia from now? Based on
the rapidity of climate change today, society has a moral obligation to protect the planet
in order to maintain stability for generations as close as our grandchildren.

Attfield, Robin. “Global Warming, Equity and Future Generations.” Human Ecology
Review, vol. 17, no. 2, 2010, pp. 102–105. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24707657.

This article aims to analyze various principles and approaches to solving the
climate change problem. He acknowledges the many considerations that must be
made in regards to the climate change problem. These are not limited to future
generations, but also other species, different global cultures, as well as the
equality of persons (who can emit what and why). He goes about this by
introducing the anthropogenic theory. This source provided me with insight to all
of the different considerations there are relating to the climate problem, as well
as already proposed solutions. This source is centered around policy in stasis
theory. Pertaining to credibility and bias, this source was published by Human
Ecology Review that promotes an ecological perspective. While this source is
credible, there could be bias pertaining to what they specifically are trying to
prove through their research.

Babcock, Hope M. “The Federal Government Has an Implied Moral Constitutional Duty
to Protect Individuals from Harm Due to Climate Change: Throwing Spaghetti against
the Wall to See What Sticks.” Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 4, Jan. 2019, pp. 735–
786. EBSCOhost, doi:10.15779/Z380R9M43N.
This article attempts to answer the question “whether or not it is time to
incorporate an environmental protection norm into the constitution”. This question
is specifically in regards to individual rights and affirmative government duty.
Hope Babcock concludes that constitutionalizing environmental norms is the only
way to protect vulnerable individuals, and future generations from the threat of
climate change. They relate this needed addition to other constitutional
protections, including our fundamental rights. By providing methods in which this
could be added to the constitution, this source provides great insight into how we
may be able to go about considering and protecting future generations, should
we decide we have that obligation. Again, this source addresses the policy
portion of stasis theory. This source could be biased due to a perception that the
government is not currently doing enough / political preferences. This source can
be considered credible as it is published by UC Berkeley School of Law,
however, this could also play into the biases.
DAVIDSON, MARC D. “Wrongful Harm to Future Generations: The Case of
Climate Change.” Environmental Values, vol. 17, no. 4, 2008, pp. 471–
488. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/30302339.

This article by Marc Davidson, investigates whether governments are justified in

handling damage as a result of climate change as a “wrongful harm” to future
generations. He argues that thus far, there has been no coherent solution
present in regards to the non-identity problem presented by Parfit. As a result,
there is nothing to say that we necessarily owe consideration to future
generations, because the future is uncertain and no life they have as result of our
actions will be worse than their non-existence if it wasn’t for us. That being said,
the author feels that a precautionary approach should be used in regards to
climate risks, for the sake of self-ownership and personal property rights. This
addresses the definition portion of stasis theory by addressing if it really is an
issue and cause/effect as well. This source can be considered credible because
The White Horse Press (the publisher) is known for publishing internationally
respected academic journals and books. Since this article does take a position,
there is some bias present.

Farber, Dan. “How Climate Change Will Affect Real Lives - Now and in the Future • The
Revelator.” The Revelator, 4 June 2019, therevelator.org/future-climate-impacts/.

This source provides an analysis of projections concerning climate change at

various points in the future. Although it acknowledges that these long-term
climate models are predictions, not certainties, through the analysis of the
models Farber conclude that even with lower-emission projections, there will still
be great detriment to future generations. He concludes that we must do as much
as possible to mitigate the effects of climate change for future generations,
because what we do now will make a big difference to future generations. This
source helped me identify the effects our actions have on future generations, in
order to help aid me in determining if we have an obligation to them. In relation to
stasis theory, cause/ effect is most prominent. This source can be considered
credible due to Dan Farber directing the Center for Law, Energy and the
Environment at UC Berkeley. However, his position (teaching environmental law)
could cause bias from his personal opinions on policy.

HAYES, CHRISTOPHER. “The New Abolitionism.” Nation, vol. 298, no. 19, May 2014,
pp. 12–18. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=95695767&site=ehost-live.

This article touches on the effects mitigating climate change would have,
including detrimental economic effects that have only been seen once thus far in
history- with the abolition of slavery. This source was helpful in that it showed
some of the negative economic effects changing our current energy production
 methods would have, specifically on the fossil fuel industry. This source provided
a different interpretation on the effects of mitigating climate change, that had not
yet been addressed by my other sources.

MAST, KATHERINE. “Environment & Climate.” Discover, vol. 40, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 32–
35. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=132987709&site=ehost-live.

The article covers various scientific information that covers the environment and
climate fields and their findings. It explains how since the 1990’s the Thwaites
glaciers, found in Western Antarctica, are the least stable due to melting at an
accelerating rate. The bias within the article is towards climate change and how it
will negatively impact generations to come. It reaches out to those that have a
conviction towards the ice caps being in danger and those that would fight for
them.

“The Effects of Climate Change.” NASA, NASA, 9 July 2019, climate.nasa.gov/effects/.

The central claim of the article describes how the Earth has been affected and
will be affected by global temperatures rising. Over the next century NASA
believes the global temperature will raise between 2.5 to 10 degrees. Then to
supplement this the article explains how the growing season has continued to
lengthen nationally due to greenhouse gases. This being a scientific article
written by NASA their credibility is immediately verified. They are reaching out to
those people who are skeptical to climate change and require more scientific
backing, such as numbers or tests, to be convinced.

Zulfiqar, Muhammad, et al. “Threats of Global Warming for Pakistan’s Agriculture: An

Evidence from Shigari Kalan Watershed, Skardu.” Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, vol.
34, no. 3, Sept. 2018, pp. 569–574. EBSCOhost,
doi:10.17582/journal.sja/2018/34.3.569.574.

I chose this article because it comes from a different side of the world. This is not
American made or influenced, it describes the problems happening to Pakistani
agriculture from someone who is not looking in but someone who actually lives at
the location. The author explains how the melting of ice caps are needed to
supply the Indus River then later explains that if it too much ice melts than this
will negatively affect the crops and land in the surrounding areas. The bias from
the author comes from his worry about his country being able to sustain their
livelihood. He does not want future generations to be unable to thrive. His
stakeholders are the parents out there and those that would see the world be
great after we leave it.