Moral responsibility
In most cases, moral responsibility usually implies the knowledge, choice, and value significance of an issue. When an individual harbors a sense of responsibility, they are judged to know how a problem can impact other beings’ welfare or liberty (Brown, 2020). In this regard, moral responsibility explains why environmental ethics has, in recent times, attracted the attention and concern of the general public, as well as environmentalists. For a long time, human activities were believed to be neutral because the assumption was that nature was impersonal and extensive, to be negatively impacted by such practices (Öhman, 2016). However, this narrative was far from the truth, and the impacts are evident in the current climatic changes. One of the industries at the forefront for these changes has been the agricultural industry. The industry releases dangerous greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, including pesticides and insecticides, in the form of methane and nitrous oxide, responsible for destroying the ozone layer (Brown, 2020). As such, the moral dilemma has been focused on how the industry can curb its release of greenhouse gases while sustaining its development and the livelihood it offers to people globally.
Environmentalists’ first question is how the global community should tolerate much degradation from agricultural-induced climate changes. One understands that the agricultural sector is a critical industry because it is primarily for human sustenance (“UN,” 2015). Meaning, abruptly moving to halt the practices at once will be detrimental to individual nations and across the globe due to food security issues. In this regard, to address climate change, agricultural industries will have to first settle at what degree to steady greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This means that the agricultural industry will have to take action in alleviating its greenhouse gas emissions at a level that consequently averts harmful anthropogenic interferences with the climate system. In this case, the central dilemma is that while the practice may act to limit the degree of pollution still, the negative impacts will continue to manifest (“UN,” 2015). Thus, because the agricultural industry is crucial for sustenance, all its harmful activities cannot be eliminated at once; meaning, climatic changes continue to be perpetuated.
Another ethical dilemma has been pegged on the absence of scientific certainty surrounding the impacts of agricultural-induced climate changes. According to some agriculturalists, no approach should be considered on climate changes, till scientific doubts concerning the effects are entirely solved (Myungsik, 2015). The reason for such a stand by the group is that there may be other better approaches to implement, instead of “blindly” attacking agricultural practices believed to be responsible for the changes. True to this assertion, other nations, for instance, the U.S. eliminated the uncertainties, a move that violated the UNFCCC, wherein signatories resorted not to use scientific uncertainties as an excuse for not taking the appropriate measures. However, the issue becomes contentious because scientific uncertainties concerning the magnitude and climate change are not in dispute. For example, it is factual that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere, absorb infrared radiation, and there is a direct correlation between temperature and levels of greenhouse gases (Myungsik, 2015). Therefore, the vital ethical question is whether scientific uncertainty is reason enough to curb all the agricultural practices, leading to greenhouse gas release.
Also, when it comes to agricultural industries, developed nations have better established and booming agricultural industries than developing and third world nations. As such, addressing climatic change has been a contentious one between the sections, with developing and third world nations arguing that the developed countries should act before them (Talukder et al., 2020). In this case, the developed nations would be mandated to agree to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before other regions because they contribute immensely to climatic changes. The challenge is that a wholesome approach can only be solved whereby every nation is responsible for its industrial actions. Besides, directing that some countries should go first would not be feasible since those required to lead the measures will ultimately feel less disadvantaged. For example, if the U.S. and China act first, climate change will continue in other areas, and this outcome will only function to lessen their competitive advantages. On the contrary, the U.S. alone, with a global population of only 4 percent, contributes to 22 percent of the world’s inclusive greenhouse gases; hence, reducing their emission will significantly impact climate changes (Talukder et al., 2020). Therefore, the debate is a contentious one and raises an ethical dilemma that needs further interpretation.
Overall, the agricultural industry is responsible for massive greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. There is a need to curb some of the practices leading to such emissions, including reducing the utilization of pesticides and insecticides such as methane and nitrous oxide. However, the ethical dilemma arises when such measures directly touch on overall agricultural productivity. Examples of such challenges entail meeting demands, adapting to climate change effects, and managing the natural resources. In addition, various nations, particularly for the developed, have not fully committed to the course of climate change because their agricultural industries are massive, and countermeasures may disadvantage their competitiveness.