By SHIDARTA (July 2024)
Some time ago, I had the privilege of delivering an online lecture as a guest lecturer at Sultan Zainal Abidin University (Terengganu, Malaysia). The lecture centered on legal philosophical perspectives related to environmental sustainability. This article aims to succinctly summarize the main ideas discussed during the lecture and the outcomes of the fruitful discussions with faculty members and students. This article aims to examine the ethical dimensions of environmental sustainability through the lens of legal philosophy, focusing on utilitarianism and its implications for policy decisions affecting biodiversity conservation and deforestation.
What constitutes environmental sustainability? According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), sustainability programs integrate two critical dimensions: (1) environmental, and (2) social considerations. In essence, societal progress must align with responsible environmental stewardship. The emphasis is on development that minimizes environmental harm. UNEP prioritizes issues such as biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation, pollution prevention, and community health in its initiatives. Conversely, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) offers a nuanced perspective, focusing on maintaining a resilient and healthy environment not only for the present generation but also for future ones.
Environmental sustainability encompasses a vast domain. For instance, biodiversity conservation underscores the imperative of protecting environments, especially forests referred to as the Earth’s lungs, vital habitats for diverse flora and fauna. Preserving forests ensures a legacy for future generations. Their destruction jeopardizes the future well-being of our descendants.
Fundamentally, environmental sustainability upholds the right of all individuals to a healthy environment. Legal philosophy elucidates the significance of this right and underscores the necessity of its protection.
Let’s examine a map delineating regions in Malaysia and western Indonesia. The map indicates areas that were previously covered by forests but have since been cleared. Areas undergoing deforestation are highlighted in red. Some regions are beginning to tackle this issue through reforestation initiatives, marked in purple, while green areas indicate existing tree cover, encompassing trees taller than five meters.
Reestablishing lost tree cover is a protracted endeavor, especially in tropical rainforests like those in Indonesia and Malaysia, where recovery can span 50 to 100 years—approximately three human generations. Once damaged, the regeneration of these ecosystems is lengthy and uncertain.
The world hosts various types of forests, with tropical rainforests representing about 40%, found near the equator, and temperate forests spanning regions between tropical and boreal zones. Tropical rainforests, renowned for their exceptional biodiversity and medicinal plants, demand heightened protection.
Renowned biologist E.O. Wilson likened the destruction of rainforests for economic gain to burning a Renaissance masterpiece to cook a meal, highlighting the disproportionate trade-off between short-term economic benefits and irreversible environmental damage.
A Â 2013 report attributed 24% of global deforestation to land clearance for European livestock, compared to a mere 2% from oil palm plantations, primarily in Malaysia and Indonesia. These activities are legally sanctioned through state permits, supporting millions of livelihoods driven by economic incentives and ongoing permit issuance.
How does legal philosophy illuminate this phenomenon? Utilitarianism, a prominent ethical framework, prioritizes actions that maximize happiness and minimize suffering. However, its emphasis on material gain may overlook minority interests. Utilitarianism presupposes rational human behavior, prioritizing pleasure over pain, assessed via Jeremy Bentham’s ‘Felicific Calculus,’ which considers factors such as duration, intensity, and immediacy of pleasure. Utilizing this calculus allows us to evaluate the economic viability of converting tropical forest land into oil palm plantations. Considering the immediacy factor, significant economic gains can be realized quickly compared to maintaining the area as a biodiverse forest. Yet, how enduring are these benefits in contrast to the satisfaction of preserving the forest sustainably? Moreover, how genuine is this satisfaction? Bentham’s calculus also probes the extent factor, assessing how broadly this satisfaction is experienced by the broader population. Additionally, it considers how this satisfaction contributes to other sustainable forms of satisfaction.
Applied to deforestation, extensive palm oil cultivation has profoundly impacted tropical rainforests, leading to air and water pollution, soil erosion, and contributing to climate change, resulting in widespread suffering. Conversely, proponents argue that palm oil plantations significantly boost national economies, as evidenced by Malaysia’s projected 2022 GDP exceeding 36 billion Malaysian ringgit, alongside job creation and economic benefits.
This article acknowledges that developing nations like Indonesia and Malaysia face a difficult decision between preserving their forests sustainably or exploiting them for financial gain. Philosophical perspectives do not definitively determine which choice is morally superior. Therefore, an approach focused solely on economic benefits must be balanced with thoughtful application. Utilitarianism is critiqued for prioritizing the majority’s interests, which can neglect considerations of justice. However, a closer examination of Bentham’s calculations suggests he was cautious about endorsing policies solely for short-term profit-driven motives.
Managing this intricacy necessitates finding an equilibrium between happiness and suffering. Legal philosophy, articulated by political philosopher John Rawls, advocates for principles of justice such as ensuring liberty, equal opportunities, and prioritizing the most disadvantaged communities. To some extent, this perspective diverges significantly from utilitarianism. The most disadvantaged minority group, in this context, consists of indigenous peoples in tropical rainforests, who are disproportionately impacted by deforestation. This underscores the significance of protecting their rights amidst initiatives for environmental conservation. Thus, achieving environmental sustainability must not impoverish local populations. The state’s role is crucial in safeguarding these communities’ interests while advancing sustainable development goals.
In addition to marginalized local communities, there are also community groups whose voices are often ignored because they are not yet in existence. These groups represent future generations, to whom we are indebted for the natural environment we utilize today. (***)
