Many countries have begun to introduce a variety of laws to include the right to a healthy environment, but will these laws be successful in protecting their citizens against climate change and global pollutant? It’s widely known that ecosystems have no boundaries, rivers flow across countries, air circulates globally, and organisms travel across borders. Pollutants, similar to ecosystems, have no regard for state boundaries, and as such, should be considered at a global scale. It is essential to consider how a state could protect its citizen’s right to a healthy environment if environmental degradation is occurring outside of its boundaries? This blog will be applying the Canada’s lack of a right to a healthy environment to the discourse surrounding why it is crucial for an internationally accepted protection of a healthy environment.
Canada is one of the few countries that lack a right to a healthy environment in the charter of freedoms (Suzuki 2014). Despite the lack of a right to a healthy environment, Canadians continue to face health repercussions caused by various pollutants (Brinker 2017). With many drinking advisories and continued health concerns caused by poor environmental quality, why hasn’t Canada introduced a right to a healthy environment? Canada is not the only country lacking in the right to a healthy environment; there are dozens of states that have so far failed to protect its citizens.
Why does it matter if another country introduces the legal right to a healthy environment? Pollutants travel globally, and the repercussions of environmental degradation occur both locally, regionally, and globally. An anthropogenic forest fire at a local scale causes ecological degradation, but the smoke from the fire can spread throughout many countries causing increased health concerns at larger scales. How can a state protect its citizen’s right to a healthy environment if environmental degradation and pollution are occurring outside state boundaries? The answer is an internationally accepted right to a healthy environment. Countries must come together to determine what a healthy environment consists of and how to protect it. This is especially important in developing countries that are often disproportionately affected by the repercussions of environmental degradation (Unprecedented Impacts of Climate Change 2019). Within Canada, minority groups are also disproportionately impacted by the consequences of environmental degradation; many indigenous communities experience health concerns related to pollutants at increased rates (Brinker 2017).
The need for an international right to healthy living is further supported by various ethical theories. To an ecocentrist, the ecosystem and every abiotic and biotic organism found within are morally significant (Rolston 1985). From this perspective, the right to a healthy environment is ethically essential in the duty of protecting both humans and the environment. Similarly, biocentrism argues that every living being is morally considerable, and as such, there is a moral imperative to protect not only humans from environmental degradation but all biotic organisms (Taylor 2011). Introducing the right to a healthy environment is only the first step in protecting people and the environment.
Without international acceptance and commitment to a universal right to a healthy environment, people globally will continue to experience the negative impact caused by pollutants and environmental degradation (Unprecedented Impacts of Climate Change 2019). Canada is one of a dozen countries that has failed to implement a right to a healthy environment, despite the ongoing need (Suzuki 2014). There is an ethical obligation, not only to every person but to the environment, to introduce laws protecting people’s right to a healthy environment.
Brinker, Coleman. “Your Right to Live in a Healthy Environment: Phantom or Reality?” Centre for Constitutional Studies. University of Alberta Faculty of Law, August 4, 2017. https://ualawccsprod.srv.ualberta.ca/2017/08/your-right-to-live-in-a-healthy-environment-phantom-or-reality/.
Suzuki, David. “Canada Has to Join the Environmental Rights Movement.” HuffPost Canada. HuffPost Canada, January 5, 2015. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/environmental-rights_b_6103258.html?utm_hp_ref=ca-right-to-a-healthy-environment.
Rolston, Holmes. “Duties to Endangered Species.” BioScience 35, no. 11 (December 1985): 718–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310053.
Taylor, Paul W. “The Ethics of Respect for Nature.” Essay. In Respect for Nature: a Theory of Environmental Ethics, 197–218. Princeton Univ Pr, 2011.
“Unprecedented Impacts of Climate Change Disproportionately Burdening Developing Countries, Delegate Stresses, as Second Committee Concludes General Debate | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases,” October 8, 2019. https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/gaef3516.doc.htm.
Hello,
I enjoyed reading your blog! I love the idea of a global law for allowing everyone to live in a healthy environment, I think this would be ideal to have all countries agree to this. I would love a more in-depth explanation on how we would begin to achieve this. I think it would be good to begin discussing basic ways just to allow the reader to see how this could be achievable. It does seem like it would be difficult. Would it be more helpful to start off small? Push individual countries to creating laws for its people first? If Canada does not want to give the people the right to a healthy environment then how do you convince them to commit to a similar law that encompasses the whole world’s population?
I really like that your blog thinks outside the box for better solutions and I do hope that the idea of a global law towards giving everyone a right to a healthy environment becomes a real possibility.
Olivia Salioh
Hi,
Thank you for your blog post. I really enjoyed reading your thoughts and view on the movement for environmental rights in Canada. I agree with you that Canada is not the only country that is lacking a right to a healthy environment for its citizens. The idea of a universal right is also appealing. I really love the idea and agree that it is in line with various ethical stances such as biocentrism and ecocentrism. However, I disagree with the idea that the introduction of a legal right to a healthy environment for a specific country would not matter that much. While the effects of certain environmentally degrading actions can be felt globally, the polluting and degrading actions of a particular country are usually felt most by that country. An anthropogenic forest fire, like in the example that you gave, would affect its immediate surrounding and is more likely to have a greater impact on the country it started in than on countries further away. I believe that a country must ensure the protection of its citizens’ rights and the inclusion of a right to a healthy and sustainable environment would help to ensure that that country would protect the environment as well. I also think that starting small might be easier for some countries. I think it would be difficult to get people who aren’t willing to have a national right to a healthy environment to agree to a binding international one.
Overall, I enjoyed your post and the fact that you are thinking past boundary lines. And I certainly agree that an international right would be a great idea.