Fossil Fuels: Utility or Expedient
In the case of energy provided by burning fossil fuels, Mill urges the public to consider whether fossil fuels are in our short term or long-term interest. He asks the public to consider the topic of climate change and the fuels we use as a matter of public interest, and not a matter of immediate economic benefit. According to an article comparing the financial, social, and environmental impacts of the differing fuel sources by Walker and Reid, “Fossil fuels have been used for many years due to their inexpensive nature, but the use of them generates hydrocarbons that create greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” They also emphasize that fossil fuels are exhaustible and set to run out in 50- 150 years.
What is important about the discussion of what fuels we should be using for the greatest overall long-term happiness; it is important to discuss how they affect the environment long- term as well. According to Mill, a decision or action rooted in utility rather than expedience is going to produce the greatest overall happiness long- term. He argues that expedient choices may have pleasurable short-term consequences but are ultimately hollow and interested only in instant gratification. Mill agrees that the use of exhaustible fossil fuels is an expedient decision rather than one of utility. While the inexpensive costs of fossil fuels are helpful to the economy right now, the use of fossil fuels neglects the happiness and well- being of future generations.
Mill argues that the consequences of the greenhouse gas affect directly violate the rights of future generations. The consequences of climate change would infringe on future generation’s rights to liberty, property, and happiness. This is due to the environmental repercussions of greenhouse gas emissions; the inevitable result would be damage to the environment that will cause serious health implications to the future generations, thus infringing on their right to happiness. However, while the justice for future generations is a big factor on what makes using fossil fuels an expedient choice, the economic consequences highlight this as well.
If the argument for the utility of the use of fossil fuels is rooted in the inexpensive cost, Mill would argue based on the economic evidence that the economic benefits are short-term and the long- term costs of continual use of fossil fuels will undo the short- term benefits. According to Environment America, “The United States cannot afford to wait to break our dependence on fossil fuels. The cost of fossil fuels to our economy and our environment will continue to mount in the years to come unless the nation takes bold steps now to embrace the benefits of a clean energy future.” Mill argues that long- term benefits are in the interest of the achieving the greatest total happiness for the most people. Mill agrees in the case of whether switching to renewable sources of energy is a “moral” decision is based entirely off the consequences of the decision. It is clear that the consequences of switching to renewable sources is not only in the best interest of public happiness, but also an economically smart decision.