Guiding Questions

• Can justice exist without environmental protection?

• Do future generations have rights?

• Who speaks for the voiceless — animals, forests, oceans, and unborn humans?

Environmental Harm Is Moral Harm

Oil spills. Wildfires. Rising seas. Dying species. Toxic air.

These are not just environmental problems — they are matters of justice.

• Who suffers the consequences of pollution?

• Who profits from environmental destruction?

• Who is left out of decisions that shape the Earth’s future?

Justice becomes urgent when the invisible damage begins to burn, flood, or poison. And often, those with the least power suffer first — and most.

The Unequal Burden

Environmental injustice is not shared equally:

• Low-income communities often live near highways, landfills, or toxic sites

• Indigenous peoples lose ancestral land to industrial expansion

• Poorer nations suffer the most from climate change they did not cause

• Children — and the unborn — inherit the damage, with no say in its making

This is more than pollution. It’s intergenerational injustice — when the present steals from the future.

Philosophical Perspectives

John Locke believed people had the right to use nature’s resources — but only if they left “enough and as good” for others.

Aldo Leopold, in A Sand County Almanac, proposed a “land ethic,” treating nature not as property, but as part of our moral community.

Peter Singer argued for expanding the moral circle — not just to humans, but to animals, ecosystems, and all sentient life.

Jonas Salk, developer of the polio vaccine, once said:

“Our greatest responsibility is to be good ancestors.”

Competing Perspectives on Nature

Some believe nature matters because it serves human needs — clean air, food, shelter, and beauty. This is a human-centered (anthropocentric) view.

Others argue that nature has intrinsic value, even without us. Trees, rivers, animals, and mountains matter because they exist. This is an eco-centered (ecocentric) view.

Which one leads to justice? Which one leads to destruction?

A Thought Experiment

Picture a courtroom 100 years from now.

The plaintiffs: your great-grandchildren.

The defendant: your generation.

They present evidence — rising seas, extinct species, burned forests, broken promises.

What would they demand?

What would be a fair sentence?

How would you defend your generation?

What Environmental Justice Requires

To protect the Earth — and future generations — we may need to rethink the foundation of justice. This could include:

• The Right to a Healthy Environment – access to clean air, water, and soil for all

• Legal Advocates for the Future – representatives for unborn generations in environmental law

• The Polluter Pays Principle – those who cause harm must repair it

• Indigenous Sovereignty – restoring voice and authority to the original caretakers of the land

• Corporate Accountability – rejecting profit as an excuse for environmental destruction

• Climate Justice – making climate policy fair, especially for those least responsible but most affected

Reflect and Discuss

• Should trees, rivers, or animals have legal rights? Who would defend them?

• Should people who are not yet born have legal standing today?

• What choices is your generation making that future generations will remember — or regret?

Suggested Readings

• A Sand County Almanac – Aldo Leopold

• Silent Spring – Rachel Carson

• Laudato Si’ (On Care for Our Common Home) – Pope Francis

• Should Trees Have Standing? – Christopher Stone

• United Nations – Intergenerational Solidarity and Climate Justice

Next Lesson Preview

Lesson 11: Protest and Civil Disobedience – When Breaking the Law Is Just

What happens when the law itself becomes unjust?

“We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors — we borrow it from our children.”