Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy centres around the concept of the ‘categorical imperative’, the idea that we must act in line with practical rules that we can ‘will’ to become universal laws. This foundational ethical principle holds profound relevance for how we approach the urgent crisis of climate change and the fundamental rights at stake. The recent judgements of the Supreme Court in M K Ranjitsinh vs Union of India and that of the European Court of Human Rights in Verein Klima Seniorinnen Schweiz vs Switzerland have affirmed the right to a stable climate as a fundamental right of all citizens, setting crucial precedent in the global fight against climate change.
As the impact of climate change becomes increasingly dire and far-reaching, it is essential that we ground our understanding of this crisis in rigorous philosophical and ethical inquiry. The escalating threats to life, health and wellbeing are not merely environmental challenges, but profound moral and rights-based issues. Kant’s categorical imperative compels us to consider universal consequences of our actions.
One illustration Kant provides in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals is making a promise one does not intend on keeping. Imagine you are in a difficult situation and urgently want funds. You deliberately request a loan from a friend, aware that you will never have the means to repay it. In order to know if an action is moral, it is essential to have a precise understanding of the ‘practical rules’ of that action, which according to Kant is what logic determines in accordance with the requirements of the situation.
Here, the rule might be something like: “I will borrow money with no intention of repaying it to resolve a difficult situation.” Next, you determine if this may be universally applicable as a law. The analogous universal law in this context would be: “Every individual is obligated to borrow money with no intention of repaying it.” Now consider if your conduct is essentially contradictory when put in a system where everyone is compelled to adhere to it. In this case, the answer is yes—the rule fails to be universal in application.
Transposing Kant’s philosophy into an environmental context, we may posit that an activity is correct if it is something we can universally desire every individual to undertake, while ensuring the earth’s climate maintains a sustainable balance. Pertinently, this universalisability requirement will have to be in respect to both the present and future. This implies it is unethical to see and use other individuals, from present and future generations, as tools to achieve your own objectives.
The Supreme Court in M K Ranjitsinh, while noting that “without a clean environment which is stable and unimpacted by the vagaries of climate change, the right to life is not fully realised”, has held that there is an inherent right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change within the broad contours of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and courts must also be alive to other rights of affected communities such as the right against displacement.
As the havoc caused by climate change increases year by year, the court noted it became necessary to articulate this as a distinct right. In this case, the court encountered a peculiar dilemma. The matter involved the protection of a highly endangered avian species, known as the Great Indian Bustard, listed as critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. This bird is exclusively found in Rajasthan and Gujarat, which also have significant potential for solar and wind energy generation.
In its earlier order in 2021, the SC, in response to the decreasing population of the species, issued a comprehensive limitation on overhead transmission lines within a radius of 99,000 square kilometres. Several solar and wind energy businesses submitted applications stating this prohibition might result in the incapacitation of energy generation facilities in key regions of the states, thus impeding India’s attainment of its net zero objective.
The SC decided to relax the restrictions, demonstrating a deliberate effort to find a middle ground between two equally important environmental goals. It established an expert group to evaluate the practicality of placing electricity lines underground in certain regions. The group was instructed to consider both the need of preserving the Great Indian Bustard and the necessity of promoting sustainable development. In other words, the court determined that the categorical imperatives of right to life of Indian citizens and ensuring the conservation of endangered animals would have to be achieved by balancing the two imperatives and adopting a holistic approach.
In a similar vein, the ECHR in Verein Klima Seniorinnen Schweiz recognised that elderly and other vulnerable groups have a right to be protected from the threats posed by global warming, and governments have a legal obligation to take aggressive action to mitigate climate change. It affirmed that governments have a duty to protect their people from the existential dangers of global warming. The court’s ruling makes clear that climate change is not just an environmental problem, but a direct threat to the fundamental rights of all people.
The practical implications of these judgements are profound. They empower citizens to hold their governments accountable for failing to meet their climate commitments and take adequate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Pertinently, going forward, any policies or actions that exacerbate climate change can be challenged in court as infringing on the fundamental right to a livable environment.
(Views are personal)
(saaisudharsans@gmail.com)
Saai Sudharsan Sathiyamoorthy | Advocate, Madras High Court