It ain't the heat, it's the humanity
The world's poorest folk are hit hardest by environmental depletion
Protecting our natural resources is not just about preserving non-human species. Most immediately, the environment is the wellspring of all life. Soils, mosses, and even rocks filter our water making it safe for us to drink, plants cleanse the air, and insects and microbes eat our waste so we aren’t drowning in dead bodies and feces. I could go on and on and talk about how nature provides us with food, shelter, fibers, and so forth but I’m sure you get the picture: a vibrant eco-sphere is essential for healthy human life. Right now, and also into the future.
If we project current consumption patterns 30 years to the year 2050, the oceans will contain more pounds of plastic than fish, we’ll lose 10% more of terrestrial biodiversity and 13% more of mature forests, 2.3 billion more people will live in river basins with severe water stress and premature deaths due to air pollution will double (OECD 2012).
And if that is not bleak enough for you, fold in the changing climate with rising sea levels, more intense wildfires, heatwaves, droughts, and hurricanes. All of these future disasters make protecting the environment an essential ingredient for inter-generational justice. Why should the people of tomorrow pay for our inability to live within our means?
Zooming back to today, environmental destruction is a social justice issue already. In low-income nations, a full 36% of total wealth is estimated to come directly from natural resources, while globally 70% of those who live below the poverty line rely directly on nature for their livelihoods. The poor are thus disproportionately affected by environmental disasters. In addition to the loss of livelihood, the less wealthy tend to have more underlying health issues, less infrastructure, and fewer financial backups. So when problems do arise, they are less equipped to respond. There are also the injustices of poor folk having to accept greater risks such as in choosing where to live, housing is less expensive under freeways and near toxic waste sites, and having to accept greater risks on the job, such as working without a contract, health insurance, or safe working conditions. This was brought into focus for many of us when we learned of the appalling working conditions of garment makers following the tragic collapse of the factory in Dhaka in 2013 leading to the death of 1,134 people.
You might still think some environmental issues are not social ones. And by definition, perhaps they are not. But in practice, most environmental issues are also social ones. Time and again we see that “poverty causes disasters, and disasters cause poverty.” Indeed, the United Nations, and many others, have concluded that to lift people out of poverty we need to protect the environment and to protect the environment we need to lift people out of poverty.
If you believe it is a moral imperative to help the poor, listen up here Christians, then it is a moral imperative to live in a way that doesn’t harm the environment. I also think there is a moral imperative to let other species live, especially if the destruction of their ecosystems is merely for an indulgence. There are many lines of reasoning which lead to the conclusion that protecting our common physical ground is also our common moral ground. Indeed, we can view the dangers of climate change, as a stand-in for all environmental issues, as not so much about the rising temperature but about the impact on humanity. To finish as I started, it ain’t the heat, it’s the humanity.