David Suzuki in his report advocated that Canada should establish an environmental bill to protect people’s living environments. David thought that Canadian people had the moral right to enjoy a healthy environment. So his suggestion was moral. In the current world, more and more countries regard the right of citizens to enjoy a healthy living environment as one of the civil rights. The citizen’s right to enjoy a good environment is the right to live and develop in a healthy, comfortable and beautiful environment. The environmental right is a new concept of right arising from the crisis of the human environment, which is the legalization of moral rights and due rights. It is also the combination of collective rights and individual rights, and the high unity of rights and obligations. In the social relationship of environment, each subject of this right not only enjoys and utilizes the environment but also undertakes the obligation not to cause damage to the environment enjoyed and utilized by other subjects. This belongs to the category of moral obligation. Human existence cannot break this moral principle.
The suggestion of establishing the related law to protect humans’ right to live in a healthy environment is moral for the whole society. David’s idea is reasonable that “progress is possible when enough people recognize its necessity and come together to make it happen” (Suzuki 2015). His words reflect a reality that human beings as a whole need to cooperate to protect the environment, and the premise of realizing this national consciousness is to turn environmental rights into the rights of every citizen. In this report, he proposes the Canadian government to join the environmental plan. The reason is that many countries in the world have been actively promoting the strategy of a healthy environment. If Canadians want to achieve sustainable development, the Canadian government also needs to make a moral decision. So David Suzuki’s idea is in line with the common moral requirement of the whole humans society.
I also support David’s suggestion because the environment is closely related to the living conditions of human beings. In modern industrial society, human social activities have caused serious damage to the environment. Air pollution, water pollution, climate change and other issues have caused serious threats to humans’ health. If humans’ right to subsistence cannot be guaranteed, then other social development and progress will lose their basic significance. Therefore, it is a good decision to add environmental rights to civil rights. For example, some industries engage in the production which causes environmental damage for their own economic interests, such as the arbitrary emission of chemical wastewater, which is not in line with moral values. Because they destroy the living environment of the surrounding residents, at the same time, in a broad sense, they are also destroying their own living environment, because human beings live on the same earth. Therefore, if we can establish laws to protect people’s living environment, it will be beneficial to all mankind. Obviously, it is not an easy thing to achieve this goal because it also requires the society and the government to pay more costs and improve the regulatory force. For Canada, the author’s idea will also receive different feedbacks from different parties. However, in the face of the harsh reality of environmental pollution and destruction, people gradually realize that the environmental right, such as breathing fresh air, has been harmed and deprived, and seriously endangers the survival and development of human beings. Therefore, people put forward the requirements of citizens’ environmental rights in order to strive for a clean and good living environment. It has become an important part of social morality and reminds humans to care about their living environment.
Work Cited
Suzuki, David. (2015) “Canada Has to Join the Environmental Rights Movement”. Huffpost.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/environmental-rights_b_6103258.html?utm_hp_ref=ca-right-to-a-healthy-environment.
Hi Juniper31!
I like how you brought in the idea that other countries around the world are taking strides to ensure a healthier environment for their citizens and the environment as a whole. Canada needs to raise their standards as well when it comes to protecting the land, for the government still allows the resources to be exploited where the gaining of profits is of the utmost importance. It is incredible to think that the environment is not taken care of properly, when we need resources such as clean drinking water, foods without pesticides, etc. to survive/stay healthy.
Yet, it not just within its national borders where Canada does not take care of its environment. Canada has a global reputation for being “environmentally clean” around the world but the government seems to not be doing much to curb their carbon emissions:
“An April 2019 report on emissions showed 716 million tonnes of greenhouse gases were produced in Canada in 2017 — an increase of eight million tonnes from 2016.” (https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change.html)
Even though one can argue that Canada does not pollute the earth and the environment as much as other countries with carbon emissions (China: 8.55 billion tonnes in 2017, U.S.A: 5.69 billion tonnes in 2017, India: 2.26 billion tonnes in 2017), the fact is that there is no excuse for the government of Canada to be dragging their feet when it comes to health of this planet and their own citizens. A fraction of the amount of money, time, and effort spent to keep the industrial areas safe/operating could be funnelled into efforts to perserving the environment that keeps us humans healthy by supporting our needs to survive.
If Canada does not incorporate environmental rights into civil rights, then they will continue to risk their citizens’ healthy futures all for the sake of profit. Like you said Juniper 31, caring about the living environment is a part of social morality. It seems that the government is immoral when it comes to properly taking care of its citizens and the environment at large.
-Melissa