Question

The article "Saving the Glaciers" imposes some questions. Using the Ethics of Care framework anser the following.

Suppose the galciers melting would have no appreciable effect on the enviroment except that they would no longer exist. 1. Would conservationists still be justified in trying to save the glaciers? If so, how could they justify their efforts?

Suppose the glaciers could be savved only if the government spends $10 billion on pollution controls- money that would have to be taken away from social programs. Would this cost be worth it? Why?

Answer 1

1. Despite the removal of the clause of environmental risks, Saving the glaciers would continue to be an ethically strong action as glaciers would represent a viable art of the natural heritage. Considering that most of the glaciers in North America are within the protected environments of National parks, they represent a case of the humanitarian responsibility towards protection of thnatural heritage. As such, the Arctic conservationists would have a strong and valid ground if they would defend their position of protecting the dwindling number of glaciers as a larger programme on ocnservation of natural heritage from climate change effects. Putting the glaciers such as the ones in the Glacial National Park of Montana on the dangerous list of the World Heritage committee could help to create urgency in the issue of glacier conservation and push for a priority based policy resolution. This is because the ‘Endangered’ status would require the World Heritage committee to brainstorm about the ways to mitigate how climate change affects the glaciers.