Why Do We Need A Risky Environmental Policy In 2267

This paper will examine the potential harm caused by the Canadian government implementing a risky environmental policy that gives subsidies to coal producers while taxing producers of renewable energy. The policy will cause an environmental disaster in 2267 if implemented, and thousands will die because of this policy. This paper examines the key arguments of both sides, in order to understand the cases for and against the policy based on how much harm both sides believe will be caused.
If a risky environmental policy is chosen that would benefit people now, but would directly cause the deaths of thousands in 2267 then one may view the policy as harmful. One might believe this harm comes from the direct impact the policy has on future persons. If these future persons are going to exist no matter what the choice is in

If the policy allowing the current people to live at a higher standard of living did not exist, then these future people may not have accordingly existed. As they have been allowed to exist in the first place, the risky policy is effectively better for the future people. Denying these people life is denying them any sort of happiness, even if they are to eventually die in a manner directly attributed to the policy in question. If the amount of happiness these people experience amounts to a life worth living then the policy is worth it. Another point the opposing view would raise is that the concern with the risky policy is tied to people who may not exist in the future. If these people were never going to exist then there is no danger associated with the policy implementation in the first place. Someone has to exist in order to be harmed. No victims therefore means no harm. The policy debate then becomes a question of what will bring the most benefit in the present rather than in the