Climate Change Ethical Analysis

After analyzing the forestry problem described earlier, the problems are clearly linked domestic government policy and not only the giant multinational corporations as Ellwood has posited. The incentive for corporations to conduct cross-border trade is not the unperturbed environmental laws, it is the comparative advantage they would gain from cheap labor and resources. LeGrain advances the argument that approximately 80% of polluting industries are in industrial nations, such as America where Greenpeace affirms that oil corporations receive billions of dollars in subsidies for their production purposes which does the most environmental damage that affects the rest of the world with it. Initiatives should be started to reduce the Global South’s dependency on the Global North because it is their high debt-GDP ratios which keep the prices of natural resources (often tied to their currency) low enabling large consumption. There is a clear incentive for the international community to reduce the Global South’s dependency because it is widely agreed that as the GDP per capita of a nation increases the residents are able to afford environmental remediation products and

It’s not secret that the human race is harming the planet. People cut down forests, release toxic gases into the air, and dump pollutants into the waterways. It’s a way of life and some of these activities are actually necessary to carry on civilized life. Nevertheless, there are ways to reduce harmful effects on the planet, and the human race is actually making progress in reducing emissions and replacing the trees that are constantly cut down. However, not all options are being pursued. Reasons for this go beyond the general skepticism of global warming and the like. There is both economic and political favorability in environmental negligence, and behind every one of these reasons, one simple truth

The more people habituating the planet, the more potential there is for emission of greenhouse gasses. In short, the basis of this argument other than years of documented research and scientific discovery is what harm could we do by being more conservative in our use of energy and other entities that produce more than their share of greenhouse gasses? The answer as it stands now is none. The harmful effects of ignoring this crisis are all but proven fact.

The Earth is currently facing detrimental environmental issues. These issues have been evident for decades; however, many people have continuously denied them to be problematic or even their existence entirely. While they have managed to get away with the rejection of these problems for many years, it is no longer deniable that the issue of environmental degradation is very real and in need of immediate action. That being said, although there have been a variety of modest attempts to increase environmental sustainability, they have demonstrated to be of minimal effect. Pollution, global warming, deforestation, and a plethora of other human impacts that cause this degradation rapidly continue to destroy the planet, and in order to obstruct them,

Many firms are learning that being environmentally friendly and sustainable has numerous benefits. (O.C Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell, 2015). This could enable them to increase goodwill from various stakeholders and also save money in the long term. This will mean that they are being more efficient and less wasteful of resources, which will enable them to be more competitive by satisfying stakeholders. The CEO of

Moral Climate Change Although some people don't see climate change as a problem, it is a moral issue. Morals are feelings and beliefs that are from within. People either believe or don't believe in it. This is because some have not seen anything that would make them feel like they need to do anything about it.

It is unethical or at least socially irresponsible for a company to avoid conducting its business in a manner in an environmentally sustainable manner because it is not beneficial to society. Society only benefits if companies conduct their business in ways that are aimed at giving back to people and the community so companies should operate their business in a way that is environmentally sustainable. Therefore, if a company chooses not to operate in a manner that is at the best interest of society it would be unethical or at least socially irresponsible for them to do

Present generations are reaping what their forefathers had sowed for them; future generations will reap what present generations have been sowing whether they like it or not. Past, present and future generations are dependent on each other’s choices. Technologies are zooming rapidly. Humanities prefer to overwork natural resources and often fell into technologies’ competitive temptations. Generations are getting smarter and innovative each day. New products are constantly changing to catch customers’ attention, while current products are still young and are not even ready to mature yet. While many are embracing technologies, few are concerned with the scars that have been embedded on natural resources. It is so easy to fall into the

Running Head: Is it possible for a business to make environmentally-responsible decisions that will provide positive spin-offs to society, but still maintain (or increase) its profits?

Ethical Climate Survey the organization with which to provide consulting services is a midsized organization with 600 employees. There is an overall of six branches, although the group is planning on expanding. The organization needs to identify the ways in which it can harmonize the culture so that everyone is in agreement with the strategies it wants to implement. There has been a success in the organizational, but it is not as expected by the management. The group expects the success levels to be of a higher percentage. It has led to questions being raised by the Directorate and stakeholders as well. Most of these issues were directed towards the culture of the organization. It is the main reason behind the organization wanting to use related expertise in helping solve the mystery.

The Earth is a dynamic, constantly changing environment in which the hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere all interact. When one changes slightly the change is then felt through out the spheres. Humans need to understand that the change they cause can have a potential for a disastrous affect on the environment. From injecting the atmosphere with greenhouse gas, or deforestation, all the unnatural things done to the environment will have an unnatural affect that will have to be dealt with. We as humans have a moral responsibility to reduce global warming gasses by changing our modes of transportation, to stop deforestation, and increase government funding into research to inhibit global warming for

Global Warming is the number one concern threatening the very existence of humans and everything within the environment today. The human race is to blame for the destruction of the natural world. The environmental issues that are threatening all human and non-human life today, started in the industrial revolution and the discovery of oil The need to improve the quality of life resulted in the construction of factories to mass produce products for consumers. These factories were powered by fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. The combustion of these fossil fuels emitted great quantities of pollutants that remain in the Earths atmosphere to this day and is the number one cause of global warming. However, in ethics one cannot evaluate just one thing. In ethics, as in nature, everything is connected to everything else (Partridge, 1998).

Another one of the many issues that the U.S. is facing is our environmental impact not only the U.S. soil but on the world. According to the article “The US Is the Biggest Carbon Polluter in History. It Just Walked Away From the Paris Climate Deal,” The United States has had the largest carbon footprint of any country. With our interest in individual travel, living arrangements, and love of common appliances and technology. We have harmed this world in unspeakable ways (Popovich). According to the article “Are the Effects of Global Warming Really that Bad?” experts predict that by the year 2100 the earth will be a jaw-dropping eight degrees warmer. The gradual warming of the planet will result in worse and more frequent severe weather, and ecosystem harm (Denchack). There is no way to revert all of the effects that have come as a result of global warming but there are ways that we can push the world in the right direction. One way is to impose stricter EPA

This paper compares the three most common types of environmental responsibility that most businesses will follow due to law, business ethics, or their own need. The articles differ due to the type of business, and also which responsibility they either chose or are forced to follow. The first article addresses how the laws can force the fishing industry to follow the limits it imposes in the marine reserves found across the world. The second article addresses how ensuring future production can force a company to address the responsibility of finding a different type of product to use in order for the other to repopulate and ensure the use of it in later years. Finally, the third article relates to how a company follows its own business

My argument is that those who have taken part in causing global warming, which are the developed countries, should be held responsible by cutting back more than other countries to correct the injustice that they have inflicted on the poorer countries. These nations are infringing on the rights of the victimized nations. Therefore, I would argue that there is an ethical basis for deciding whether some countries should cut back emissions more than others because the situation is not only unfair, but also violates the rights of innocent people. Everyone has a right to life, a right to not be harmed, and more specifically, “the right not to have one’s life taken directly as a means to further one’s end” (Finnis). Immanuel Kant thought reason tells us to, “Act only on a maxim that you can will to be a universal law” (Kant). Under Kantism views, an ethical act is ethical if it can become universal law without undermining some sort of construct. If we say that developed countries can emit greenhouse gases, thus causing harm, without consequence, then it will undermine the principle that the innocent has the right to not be harmed.