Steel factories in China have emitted outstanding numbers of pollution. The burning of charcoal creates the levels of greenhouse gases that are behind the acceleration of climate change. Some might think that the obvious moral decision for leaders in China to make is to close coal-burning factories or quickly come up with an alternative. For the sake of the future of our planet and human life, that would be ideal, but those decisions are harder to make than it may seem.
Steel is a very large industry that includes a lot of workers and a lot of income. In this article, it states that a report done by Greenpeace shows that state-owned enterprises and local officials decided to keep the steel-producing companies up and running based on the economy’s best interest. This interest supports keeping factory jobs, as the economy isn’t doing so well.
This is a dilemma in terms of morality. Is it following the views of utilitarianism; that we must perform the act that creates the greatest net balance of happiness over unhappiness? I think this is difficult because it is in the best interest of the planet to stop the pollution for the future generations to come, but it is in the present best interest of China because if the factories were cut the economy and families would suffer without the income from the industry.
If the intention of the officials behind continuing to produce mass amounts of pollution is to keep the economy and communities from suffering, it is not completely morally wrong. However, in doing that, the future suffers and that is not morally right.