Destructing human life has always been immoral. I agree with the utilitarian when they say that actions should depend on its maximization of utilities or essentially happiness. Meaning one should do what would bring smiles or joy to the most people’s faces. Utilitarians measure this by the results each actions produce. Thus, recognizing the emotions of each human after an action has taken place. With this being said, climate change does not produce happiness.Extreme weather, rising temperatures and natural disasters are one of the many negative effects of climate change. When natural disasters occur, most times casualties will occur. I am aiming to prove that climate change is a moral issue using the utilitarian point that climate change is a moral issue because people are simply dying. The problem is what to do after natural disasters? Some believe you should send aid and money but I believe that there is another route to go.

If climate change gets intense, there’s a possibility that it will destroy a population.This is because of the results of climate change, which includes more frequent and intense storms. These natural disasters usually occur around the equator. Another reason it will destroy a population is because the closer you are to the equator the probability of you being poor increases. And the further you’re away from the equator, are usually where the more wealthy of the countries are. The problem with climate change is that it’s essentially about money and how wealthy you are as a country. You notice that natural disasters usually happen in poor countries and not in countries that have money. “it only becomes a disaster when you introduce poverty,” says Ian Bray. In the earthquake that hit Haiti, hundreds of thousands died. But Haiti’s neighbor, the Dominican Republic, who was struck by a strong earthquake weeks later only suffered 500 casualties. “And that’s why the 10 hurricanes, storms and floods that have struck both Haiti and the Dominican Republic since 2004 killed 3,500 people in Haiti but just 200 people in its richer island neighbor.” The reason for this is because the Dominican Republic has more money and resources to be prepared for a natural disaster unlike Haiti. Therefore how wealthy of a country you are decides how bad you will be hit by a natural disaster, because of the resources you have. These third world countries will not have enough resources to be able to continue living if these strong storms do become more frequent.

“Moral issues are those actions which have the potential to help or harm others or ourselves.” (Lander Edu). Under these circumstances, climate change is a moral issue and has been ignored for many years now. The issue that comes with climate change is that part of the blame cannot be assigned to anyone except geography. “The higher the latitude, the bigger the temperature increase. And generally, the farther from the equator, the wealthier the country”. (Lowrey). This quote makes me believe that you can’t fully assign blame for climate change because you don’t choose whether you are born in the U.S or Haiti. It’s basically random or luck. I didn’t choose to live in the U.S neither did a 17 year old living in Indonesia choose to live there. Therefore a country can not be fully responsible for the results of a natural disaster.

Behind this climate change are developed countries, who everyday pollute the air with carbon emissions and other things that has a negative effect on the climate. If these countries decrease the output of their greenhouse gases, they can decelerate how rapidly our climate is changing. Which means they are responsible for the extreme weather, rising temperatures and natural disasters. If you can assign responsibility to a country for climate change, which causes casualties in the world, then it’s a moral issue. “The problem is that climate cannot be stabilized if less developed countries are allowed to increase their emissions for the foreseeable future. Emissions in less developed countries now dominate, and they promise to be the overwhelming source of emissions over the next several decades.” (Weisbach pg.2). Weisbach means that less developed countries should not be excluded from being blamed for climate change. The everyday suffering of third world countries pull the attention away from the overwhelming pollution that contributes to climate change.

Now the question at hand is what should these developed countries do?Because climate change is a moral issue, countries should solve the problem without going outside their country and give a good amount of aid. Examples of this is trying to decrease the use of vehicles which would decrease carbon output by the country. I think aid and charity should begin at home. Another solution is to find a way to create energy that doesn’t pollute the air. “Switching our energy system to clean sources will require large and global investments in infrastructure, technology, and engineering.” Also countries will have to agree on reducing emissions to improve the environment and decrease the chances of natural disasters.