Social Injustice.

Though we are a part of nature, humans have deteriorated the natural system to satisfy our needs, putting each element that makes up natural systems in danger not because we seek human survival, but because we see each element as a commodity. The consequences of this environmental destruction are varied, for example, the loss of wildlife, loss of non-renewable resources or renewable resources, loss of the natural landscape, climate change, social injustice. This essay aims to show how human beings, by not taking care of natural resources, cause social injustice, leading to environmental injustices and our moral responsibility to avoid social injustice.

It is essential to clarify that organisms need other organisms within natural systems to survive; this can be seen in the food chain. However, the way human beings consume natural resources is not natural. The massive consumption of resources is supported by Western culture’s economic models that have been implemented since colonialism. Similarly, some scholars claim that natural resources have an instrumental value, meaning that natural resources have value because humans use them (Jennings, 2016). However, other scholars claim that natural resources have an inherent value because they are worth it, not because humans use them (Jennings, 2016). Regardless of the philosophical perspective of the value of nature’s elements, not taking care of the environment impacts humans, and most of the time, this impacts more minorities in the United States and around the world. Those who have fewer resources are less able to navigate the impacts of environmental destruction and will feel the impact sooner and more deeply compared to those who are privileged. The disproportionate use of ecosystem elements has consequences in society, and these consequences depend on race, culture, income, etc; when the balance of each individual and society is broken, this is known as a social injustice.
Social justice is equality in all aspects, including in the economy, health, education, and all those things humans need in order to flourish in society and enjoy a fulfilling life. One aspect of social justice is environmental justice. According to Environmental Justice US EPA 2020, “Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, concerning the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Pichon (2020) defines social justice as a vision to decrease inequalities created by climate change. Climate justice recognizes and addresses those least responsible for climate change experiencing the most significant impacts; also, climate justice is ethically rooted in moral actions and consequences. An example of Pichon’s definition would be what happen in Katrina in New Orleans, 2005. Even though New Orleans was impacted by climate change for many years prior to the 2005 natural disaster, Hurricane Katrina was one way to show the rest of the world the impact of climate change, particularly the disparate impact of climate change on oppressed populations. The most affected population were Black communities, where they tended to live in areas that experienced more significant flooding and suffered housing damage (Fussel, 2010). Here, there are two elements that arose when the impact of Katrina is studied: race and income.
First, race is a social construct used by white supremacy as a tool to position itself at an advantage in the world and leave others who do not belong to their groups at a disadvantage that includes salaries and opportunities to improve themselves. In Hurricane Katrina, it was not by chance that the largest affected population was Black communities. (Pincho, 2020). In the United States, the concept of race changed over time; for example, before, the Irish and Italian community does not consider themself as white, or the white Latino term did not exist. However, in the same way, race harms those who not are white.
Second, in Hurricane Katrina, if people lived in a neighborhood where they belong to a lower social income, the money for reconstructing the house after Katrina (provided by the state) was less to those who live in white neighborhoods (Pichon, 2020).
Environmental justice is one element of social justice which describes the fight for the environment and tries to protect people in society from degradation of the environment and climate change. However, because not everyone in society has equal social standing or equal access to rights, the term environmental racism was created to describe how communities of color, especially Black communities in the US, are disproportionately affected by environmental degradation. Scholars of Environmental racism believe that it is not a coincidence that communities of color are disproportionately impacted by air pollution, chemical spills, toxic waste, flooding, and other environmental hazards; rather, the social inequalities that impact these communities in other areas also spill over into the area of environmentalism. Environmental racism impacts environmental hazards on people of color ("Environmental Justice & Environmental Racism – Greenaction For Health And Environmental Justice" 2020).
In the United States, some communities have a tremendous disproportion impact by hazards. According to Whited (2019), Black people are 54 percent more likely to be exposed to air pollution in the form of fine particulates (PM2.5) compared to the overall population. This particulate matter is related to illnesses such as lung disease, heart disease, and premature death; therefore, Black communities are three times more likely to die from asthma. Also, racial minorities are more likely to live near toxic sites and landfills and drink unhealthy water (Whited, 2019). When governments let these injustices happen, this is known as institutional racism because they are creating specific laws that only benefit a specific group, or are only enforced in specific communities but not for others.
The way we see natural resources only as a tool to accumulate wealth and how mass consumerism is promoted has a significant impact on the earth's ecosystems and significantly impacts human populations, especially those who belong to minorities or live in developing countries. Environmental ethics could help society to make people understand the inherent value of each element in an ecosystem. After this, advocacy could help create better laws that protect all instead of just one group. This would result in more equitable opportunities for all, which means improved environmental justice that would result in a more just society.
When the whole picture is evaluated, the system we live in feels difficult to change, given all the structures in place that have built things to be the way they are. However, environmental ethics can provide individuals with tools that can help reduce the impact of environmental degradation. Environmental ethics can give us a set of norms and values ​​that can help us change habits that we are used to that affect the environment. For example, some areas that can be changed including trying not to travel if it is not necessary, eating local food, reducing meat consumption, reducing our amount of waste, stopping consumerist behavior, and being actively participative in politics so that our voice can be heard. Protecting the environment is not just about fighting for the ecosystem or protecting nature; it is also about fighting against social oppression. It is a moral responsibility for all of us who live on and depend on the environment and each other.

References 
"Environmental Justice & Environmental Racism – Greenaction For Health And Environmental Justice." 2020. Greenaction.org. http://greenaction.org/what-is-environmental-justice/.

"Environmental Justice | US EPA." 2020. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice

Jennings, Viniece, Jessica Yun, and Lincoln Larson. 2016. "Finding Common Ground: Environmental Ethics, Social Justice, And A Sustainable Path For Nature-Based Health Promotion." http://10.3390/healthcare4030061 ).

Pichon, Colette. 2020. "Climate justice as social justice IGA 455: Colette Pichon Battle Guest Lecture - Zoom." Harvard.zoom.us. https://harvard.zoom.us/rec/play/tJR-c7ygqG43TNGXswSDU_V5W47sfaqshCga8qBbyh2wVCVSMFDyYuBHZbGhM1hE8sKklCA3Y5z5ulC4?continueMode=true&_x_zm_rtaid=uZcgFKkLQeeMAPPAnAaPpA.1585922846800.0f2f0f9757c600bc8fb86da2f53757fc&_x_zm_rhtaid=938 .

Whited, Brittany. 2019. "With Environmental Rollbacks, Communities Of Color Continue To Bear Disproportionate Pollution Burden | State Impact Center." Law.nyu.edu. https://www.law.nyu.edu/centers/state-impact/press-publications/expert-commentary/environmental-justice-juneteenth-2019 ).

Imagine if you were a snake..

 

 

 Environmental ethics

 

Imagine if you were a snake. Imagine if you had become a resilient species that adapted to this new ecosystem and are successfully surviving in a forest in Honduras. Imagine that every time you manage to catch a prey, you feel successful; you are the master of the forest. Now, imagine if one day you are sunbathing when you hear the roar of a truck, the shovels digging the earth. Imagine that you get scared and hide in the cave without understanding what is happening. Imagine that you get trapped and you are very scared. When you carefully manage to go outside, you realize that your home is no longer there. It has been converted into a golf course. Imagine that you try to look for food, but it is scarce, resources are limited. At the end of that endless corridor, you manage to see the light and carefully decide to look for resources in these places. The ecological system is no longer available for you. You reflect on humans and their anthropogenic perspective, and why they cannot see the inherent values of each element in the ecosystem. You feel overwhelmed and can't stop thinking that the people who destroyed your little house had no idea of environmental ethics. You also remember how the little ant commented on Leopoldo’s biological community in the land of ethics. It is difficult for you to believe that the little ant better understood that the tree leaf had to be eaten only when it had a vital need, as “Basic principles of deep ecology” said. You cannot reach the light. Your courage begins to disappear; you never find food nor water.

    We must extend our morality to the entire biotic community, as the “The Land Ethic” by Aldo Leopold tells us to avoid damage to our ecosystems. Each living being has a role in an ecosystem; if one organism disappears, it affects the whole system.  With the snake’s experience, we see each element of this system as an integrated and complex community where the absence of any of its organisms would affect the whole ecosystem. It is necessary to have an ethical relationship with nature and as part of that community. Therefore, as members of the biotic community, we must extend our morality to the community. In the same way, as members of society, we have to respect other human beings as we have to respect and care for each biotic member community. In the story of the snake, the intrinsic value of each organism can be seen. Therefore, it has a moral value and fulfills a role within its ecological niche, and everything is connected. It teaches us that we have to treat each element of the ecosystem with value and respect, as we would treat each human with respect.

    Similarly, Basic Principles of Deep Ecology by Arne Naess and George Sessions would help us to avoid damage to nature because it gives a list of basic principles that views the system as whole, like Leopold, but also adds the non-living elements such as rivers, lakes, etc. This list of principles gives us philosophical thought and advice on improving natural resource treatment. The list shows that each living element and each non-living element has richness and diversity, and all have intrinsic value. Deep ecology remarks that the only way to reduce the biological community’s elements (richness and diversity) is if humans have vital needs, meaning absolutely necessary or essential not wanted. In this case, the gold course is not a vital necessity, and the impact it has on the snake and all the other living and non-living elements is a tragedy compared to the recreation that golf provides for humans. Besides, deep ecology establishes that overpopulation impacts the deterioration of nature and this impact is unsustainable on the natural ecosystem. This cannot be improved unless we change the economic and technological way in which we live. This can be done through public policies that protect these systems. If we recognize these principles and are aware of our actions’ consequences, maybe we can achieve some change to preserve the earth's ecosystem. We may not be able to save the snake who died on the gold course, but maybe we can protect the snakes to come. #RIPsnake