There is no denying the fact that as humans, we have
all been trained by society and culture to desire improvements in ourselves,
our relationships, our environments, and our lives overall. Yet it is difficult
to prioritize these desires and decide which improvements are worth striving
for, since progress in one area of life may inhibit development elsewhere. It
is in this dilemma that policy-makers get into trouble. After all, who’s to say
we should implement a policy that benefits the environment while it is a huge
cost to society? An article called “Wellbeing Impacts of City Policies for
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions” thoroughly analyzes the term “wellbeing.”
The article takes into account the different contexts in which the term derives
its meaning, the various methods of determining a person’s wellbeing, and what
kind of environmental policy should be implemented based off this information.
In light of the rising interest in climate change, policy-makers have an
obligation to take the environment into account when making decisions. With the
analysis of human wellbeing, this article discusses three potentially ethical
issues that shouldn’t be overlooked when implementing environmental policy: 1)
the complexity behind someone’s personal state of wellbeing, 2) the economist’s
limited perception of progress, and 3) the abundance of generalizing and
irrelevant information that is currently available to decision-makers.
To
start off, the wellbeing of a person can be broken down into endless channels
and categories, each with its own justification and implication. On a broad
perspective, the article summarizes: “wellbeing can be seen as enacted on both
an individual subjective level and a social objective level.”[1] The
subjective level takes into account each individual’s experiences in life,
including cognitive factors such as their perception of themselves, their
feelings, and their overall satisfaction with their lives. According to the
article, subjective wellbeing tends to be relatively stable when it is measured
over time.[2] This is a very relatable concept. When I
think about yesterday alone, or even the recent week, I can vividly remember
when I wasn’t entirely happy and those instances outweigh the times that I
was. I am then left feeling unsatisfied with my life because my subjective
wellbeing has been hindered by recent events and I find myself searching for
methods of improvement. On the other hand, when I think about the past several
years or even my entire life as a whole, my subjective wellbeing seems far
better because it forces me to overlook miniscule blips in my happiness and I
feel satisfied. Shockingly enough, “it is only in the last three decades that
discussion on the need to measure different aspects of non-physical health and
wellbeing has gained prominence.”[1] We now know that
it is non-physical health that most significantly influences wellbeing. Even if
I was diagnosed with a disease, I would evaluate my happiness relative to the
situation, not in light of it.
The objective level of wellbeing is more external and also very
dynamic. With societal norms to uphold and social expectations to meet, an
individual’s objective wellbeing has a lot to do with their situation – whether
it be financially, geographically, or culturally – all of which play
significant roles in determining the appropriateness of environmental policies.
So what is the ethical dilemma here? Clearly we want policies that will
increase both the subjective and the objective wellbeing of individuals, and we
also want policies that will mitigate humanity’s detrimental impact on our
environment. The problem is doing both simultaneously. For example, urban
sprawl and, consequently, the excessive burning of fossil fuels is a large
contributor to climate change. If we implement policies to control this –
whether it be restrictions on travel, improved public transit, or the use of
alternative fuel – we risk harming the wellbeing of citizens whose ability to
drive correlates with their happiness. Is it ethical to inconvenience people if
it means they are helping future generations? Considering the geographic diversity
in weather, landscape, population, and cultures that this planet holds, is it
ethical to punish current populations in specific areas because the values
they’ve learned from previous generations happen to be environmentally harmful?
We’re talking about a world-wide culture shift here. Societies would realign
their values, hopefully diverging from a materialistic way of life, and in time
the world would be united with a shared goal.
However, the word “goal,” especially when defining an idea of such
magnitude, can quickly become seemingly unrealistic or unattainable without the
right frame of mind. It is written in the article that “often progress is
measured in terms of GDP, either because wealth is seen as an end as
itself or because economic wellbeing is recognized as important.”[1] Creating a
sustainable future does not merely depend on the people’s support or the
careful implementation of policy, but also on financial feasibility both on an
individual and a holistic level. The human race seeks comfort on all planes and
comfort is more than often associated with wealth. This wealth, however, varies
dramatically around the globe as some countries are developed and thriving
while others are poor and suffering. Uniting the world with an
environmentally-conscious mindset seems impossible when each society ultimately
desires financial prosperity. It hardly seems ethical to prevent countries from
developing into what others have already become simply because the development
process is too costly to the environment. Developed countries have the
technology for creating a more sustainable future but it took a long time to
obtain this technology, and climate change will not wait for equality. We
cannot ethically allow the poorer wealth-seeking countries to suffer and this
is why a world-wide shift in values is crucial. If all countries, both
developed and not, valued sustainability over wealth, GDP would lose importance
and we could then purge ourselves of selfish ideals and begin to help each
other obtain the shared goal. The article further explains that “wellbeing is
not just about economics and striving to increase wellbeing in general, rather
than GDP, has been argued to lead to a more sustainable future.” After all,
wealth can be considered a short-term goal. Policies may be implemented in order
to become more economically stable, and because GDP is so easily associated
with success and has been for such a long time, the policies’ effects will be
measured and understood immediately. Environmental policies are different. In
the short term, we see inconveniences, expenditures, and annoyances in our
daily lives. It is the long-term effect – which we cannot precisely predict –
that will reap the benefits of these policies. So what is the morally correct
path: to do as previous generations have done to us by adding to environmental
burden and passing it on? Or to inconvenience ourselves, jeopardizing our
comfort and wealth, in order to lighten the load of future generations? The
former would be an embarrassment, but the latter is extraordinarily complex. In
order to implement policies that will maintain individual wellbeing as well as
make financially feasible progress toward our goal, we need all the necessary
information.
The last section of the article analyzes the amount and assortment
of data that is available to policy-makers in order to make these crucial
decisions. What the authors found was that the majority of the related
research has been done poorly. For example, “there were conceptual problems
with direction of causation, for example does walking increase social capital
or are individuals with high levels of social capital more likely to walk.”[1] Generalization was
common and often on irrelevant aspects of the topic. The term “wellbeing” has
been defined in countless ways by so many different sources that many
measurements of it have been weak, or are lacking sufficient evidence to back
up the claim that was being made.[2] This raises the question of whether or not it is ethical for
new policies to be implemented despite the apparent lack of concrete
quantitative data. There is no doubt that research has been done, but how much
is enough to defend a policy that has the potential to impact wellbeing –
whatever the term may mean?
In conclusion, it is safe to say with certainty that climate
change is real. How we, the causing agent for climate change, go about it is
still very uncertain. Much of the responsibility lays in the hands of
policy-makers because they have the authority to alter key aspects of everyday
human life, and the responsibility to do so ethically. Of all of their ethical
responsibilities, three key concepts derived from “Wellbeing Impacts” are that
of balancing individual wellbeing with environmental awareness, shifting
holistic values away from wealth and towards sustainability, and utilizing the
right data in order to make important decisions. If policy-makers, as well as
those who abide by the rules, can selflessly prioritize between their
short-term desire for comfort and the long-term need for environmentally-conscious
morals, a sustainable future is certainly possible.
References
Hiscock, Rosemary, Pierpaolo Mudu, Matthias Braubach,
March Martuzzi, Laura Perez, and Clive
Sabel, “Wellbeing Impacts of City Policies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
28 November 2014, http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/12/12312/htm.
