In the article “Canada Has to Join the Environmental Rights Movement,” David Suzuki holds the opinion that Canada should join the environmental rights movement and establishes a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights in Parliament to make the federal government protect the environment for its citizens’ health. Throughout the article, he emphasizes the possibility of making such a law, the benefit of launching this movement, and the challenge that Canada faces about the environmental issue. This paper agrees with David Suzuki’s opinion that Canada should make laws to force the government to protect citizens’ right to live in a healthy environment.
It is ethical to protect people’s health by protecting their living environment. If the environment deteriorates, people’s health will be influenced directly. Suzuki argues that “we can’t live and be well without clean air and water, nutritious food and the numerous services that diverse and vibrant natural environments provide” (“Canada”). To some degree, environmental pollution can be regarded as a chronic poison to kill people. In a polluted environment, people are easier to become sick and get diseases like cancers. Thus, people have the right to protect their health by demanding a safe and healthy living environment. From the moral aspect, the government has the responsibility for protecting the environment for peoples’ health as long as the environment can influence people’s health.
Besides, this legalization should be supported because Canada also faces a serious environmental threat like most of the other nations in the world. Suzuki points out that the environmental issue in Canada has been serious enough as there are more than 1,000 effective drinking-water advisories, and half of the population “lives in areas where air quality reaches dangerous levels of toxicity” (Suzuki “Canada”). These alerts cannot be ignored. Before the problem has been too serious about being solved, the government should take action in time to control the pollution. The law is used to make the government pay enough attention to their inherent responsibility. Even without the law, the government still has the responsibility to protect the environment and benefit citizens’ health. The law is simply used to make the government pay enough attention and make it easy for citizens to maintain their rights and monitor the government’s behaviours.
However, some people might oppose that environmental protection means a discouragement of industrialization development, which will hinder economic development. However, environmental issues are crucial to people’s health and well-being, which should be prioritized to their economic status. People’s lives are much more valuable than money. Environmental protection doesn’t mean to protect people’s health in the current society. It also means to protect the health of future generations. If people in the current era seriously pollute the environment, then future generations have to suffer equal health threats. The long-term benefit of environmental protection is more significant than the purely economic value. Besides, environmental protection can also help boost economic development as “evidence shows strong environmental protection can benefit the economy by spurring innovation and competitiveness and reducing health-care costs” (Suzuki “Canada”). In essence, environmental protection is not contradictory to the development of industrialization. Moreover, this law can help industrialization develop on a sustainable and environment-friendly basis.
Therefore, I personally think Canada should take immediate action to join the environmental rights movement for its citizens’ health and rights. It is a moral responsibility that the Canadian government should shoulder. Faced with current environmental threats, Canada should learn from other nations to use effective laws to protect people’s health and create a system that supports people’s right to live in a safe and healthy environment.
-Linfeng Xie
Works Cited
Suzuki, David. “Canada Has to Join the Environmental Rights Movement.” Huffington Post. Nov. 5, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/environmental-rights_b_6103258.html?utm_hp_ref=ca-right-to-a-healthy-environment
Hello Linfeng,
You raise many important points from the article by David Suzuki in your blog post. Your correct assessment is that there is a governmental obligation to protect their people from the adverse effects of pollution and environmental degradation. Whether you look at it from an eccocentrist perspective or a utilitarian perspective, there is a moral imperative to protect citizens’ health.
One of Canada’s most significant issues in trying to implement a right to a healthy environment is the critics raised by industry and corporations that have historically exasperated Canada’s environmental problems. The health of citizens and the economic gains that result from resource extraction go hand in hand together. As the environment degrades, so will people’s health, and resources will begin to diminish. If the government wants to protect the citizens and economy, they must act now.
Your blog post was presented proficiently and showed a deep understanding of the issue of adding the right to a healthy environment to Canada’s charter and legal system. Immediate action is needed; the longer Canadians wait to implement a right to a healthy environment, the more negative effects will be seen throughout the population.
Thank You.