A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Change, Intergenerational Ethics, and the Problem of Moral Corruption

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Gardiner
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Complex Problem ◽  
General Level ◽  
Value Judgments ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Future Aspirations ◽  
Historical Responsibility ◽  
Scientific Report ◽  
Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference ◽  
Intergenerational Ethics

The most authoritative scientific report on climate change begins by saying: . . . Natural, technical, and social sciences can provide essential information and evidence needed for decisions on what constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” At the same time, such decisions are value judgments. . . . There are good grounds for this statement. Climate change is a complex problem raising issues across and between a large number of disciplines, including the physical and life sciences, political science, economics, and psychology, to name just a few. But without wishing for a moment to marginalize the contributions of these disciplines, ethics does seem to play a fundamental role. At the most general level, the reason is that we cannot get very far in discussing why climate change is a problem without invoking ethical considerations. If we do not think that our own actions are open to moral assessment, or that various interests (our own, those of our kin and country, those of distant people, future people, animals, and nature) matter, then it is hard to see why climate change (or much else) poses a problem. But once we see this, then we appear to need some account of moral responsibility, morally important interests, and what to do about both. And this puts us squarely in the domain of ethics. At a more practical level, ethical questions are fundamental to the main policy decisions that must be made, such as where to set a global ceiling for greenhouse-gas emissions and how to distribute the emissions allowed by such a ceiling. For example, where the global ceiling is set depends on how the interests of the current generation are weighed against those of future generations, and how emissions are distributed under the global cap depends in part on various beliefs about the appropriate role of energy consumption in people’s lives, the importance of historical responsibility for the problem, and the current needs and future aspirations of particular societies. The relevance of ethics to substantive climate policy thus seems clear. But this is not the topic that I wish to take up here.

Climate Ethics

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Gardiner ◽  
Simon Caney ◽  
Dale Jamieson ◽  
Henry Shue
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Human Dimensions ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
General Reference ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
Climate Ethics ◽  
Climate Economics ◽  
Intergenerational Ethics

This collection gathers a set of seminal papers from the emerging area of ethics and climate change. Topics covered include human rights, international justice, intergenerational ethics, individual responsibility, climate economics, and the ethics of geoengineering. Climate Ethics is intended to serve as a source book for general reference, and for university courses that include a focus on the human dimensions of climate change. It should be of broad interest to all those concerned with global justice, environmental science and policy, and the future of humanity.

scholarly journals Confidence in Local, National, and International Scientists on Climate Change

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 272
Author(s):  
Aaron C. Sparks ◽  
Heather Hodges ◽  
Sarah Oliver ◽  
Eric R. A. N. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
News Media ◽  
Internet Survey ◽  
Party Affiliation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Scientific Report ◽  
Media Reports ◽  
Change Beliefs

In many public policy areas, such as climate change, news media reports about scientific research play an important role. In presenting their research, scientists are providing guidance to the public regarding public policy choices. How do people decide which scientists and scientific claims to believe? This is a question we address by drawing on the psychology of persuasion. We propose the hypothesis that people are more likely to believe local scientists than national or international scientists. We test this hypothesis with an experiment embedded in a national Internet survey. Our experiment yielded null findings, showing that people do not discount or ignore research findings on climate change if they come from Europe instead of Washington-based scientists or a leading university in a respondent’s home state. This reinforces evidence that climate change beliefs are relatively stable, based on party affiliation, and not malleable based on the source of the scientific report.

Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities: Did This Principle Ever Exist?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Armin Rosencranz ◽  
Kanika Jamwal
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Clean Development Mechanism ◽  
Clean Energy ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Significant Shift ◽  
Historical Responsibility ◽  
Common But Differentiated Responsibilities ◽  
Self Differentiation

This article argues that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)’s conception of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDRRC) was never effectively implemented through the Kyoto Protocol. The investments under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism suggest that CBDRRC has been used by developed countries to buy a “right to pollute”, i.e., maintaining or even increasing their greenhouse gas emissions, while investing in clean energy in developing nations, thus defeating the essence of CBDRRC as intended under the UNFCCC. Second, it points out that the Paris Agreement reflects a significant shift in the CBDRRC, both in terms of its textual understanding as well as its implementation. A qualifier, “in the light of national circumstances”, was added to the principle of CBDRRC in the Paris Agreement, allowing a form of voluntary self-differentiation. This qualifier diluted a top-down, objective analysis of States’ commitments. For several scholars, this shift has meant a softening of the principle, making the “differentiation” more dynamic and flexible. In the authors’ opinion, the qualifier is a fundamental modification of the principle to make it politically more palatable. It completely disregards the notion of historical responsibility for climate change, which was the cornerstone of CBDRRC as conceived under the UNFCCC. Therefore, rather than presenting a more flexible understanding of UNFCCC’s conception of CBDRRC, the Paris Agreement marks a total departure from it. Lacking an explicit redefinition of the principle of CBDRRC, it is misleading to contend that the Paris Agreement is still anchored in it.

scholarly journals Role of sustainomics and external climate forcing mechanism in biodiversity extinction : An overview

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 223-226
Author(s):  
Neerja Upadhyaya ◽  
Ruchi Jain ◽  
R. Upadhyaya
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Fossil Fuel ◽  
Wide Distribution ◽  
Complex Problem ◽  
Climate Forcing ◽  
Sensitive Issue ◽  
The Government ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
Living Organisms

Over millions of years, physiology and anatomy of the living organisms has been changed due to internal climate forcing mechanism. This has influenced the world wide distribution of species. External climate forcing mechanism has caused rapid rise in earth’s temperature and it is expected to rise by 2-4 °C by the end of the century. It has now been recognised as the most complex problem of present scenario and being concerned in almost every field of science. Climate change is the most sensitive issue which is a challenge not only for the government and society but also for each individual. In the present communication impact of external climate forcing mechanism on biodiversity and its extinction is being analysed and role of sustainomics for the same is overviewed. Studies reveal that the rate of speciation of flora and fauna is not in the accordance with the rate of externally enforced climate change. Thus, the increased rate of climate change has caused catastrophic mass extinction threat for plants, animals and insects in the anthrapocene era. The pattern of extinction and threatened species are not yet known. Various solutions for the problem have been suggested by the multidisciplinary researches, rooted by the sustainomics. These suggestions include to diverge from fossil fuel, to use renewables, to make and apply rules for 3Rs etc. Only cooperative involvement of social, scientific and industrial bodies may resolve the problem.

scholarly journals Factors determining the soil available water during the last two decades (1997–2019) in southern Spain

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (19) ◽  
Author(s):  
José A. Sillero-Medina ◽  
Jesús Rodrigo-Comino ◽  
José D. Ruiz-Sinoga
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Water Content ◽  
Southern Spain ◽  
Retention Capacity ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Hydrological Conditions ◽  
Available Water ◽  
Available Water Content ◽  
The Mediterranean ◽  
The Impact

AbstractAssessing soil hydrological conditions can provide essential information for understanding the environmental processes that affect ecosystem services and, particularly in the context of ongoing climate change. This is key in areas affected by water scarcity such as the Mediterranean belt. Therefore, the main goals of this research are (i) to assess the main rainfall dynamics and trends of some representative hotspots along with southern Spain and (ii) to determine the impact on the soil available water content (AWC) over the last two decades. An analysis of daily precipitation and soil hydrological conditions was combined with soil sampling (543) and laboratory analyses to evaluate the properties related to the soil infiltration and retention capacity. The results show that the organic factors control soil properties and their hydrodynamics in southern Spain. Furthermore, a general declining trend in soil water availability is observed over the last two decades. This is more extreme in arid and semi-arid areas, where there have been several years in the last decade with more than 200 days without the available water content. Moreover, in these areas, heavy rainfall during specific moments of the year is the key factor that manifests a greater incidence in areas with steeper slopes, which in turn, also conditions the biological factors and the hydrodynamics of the soil. In short, in the context of climate change, the analysis of soil hydrological dynamics could be used to identify biodiversity thresholds in the Mediterranean area and even to detect phenological changes in specific plant species.

Consequentialism as an Intergenerational Ethic

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Mulgan
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Intergenerational Justice ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Radical Critique ◽  
The World ◽  
Comparative Advantages ◽  
Intergenerational Ethics ◽  
Human Extinction

Consequentialist morality is about making the world a better place—by promoting value and producing valuable outcomes. Consequentialist ethics competes with non-consequentialist alternatives where values are to be honored or instantiated rather than promoted and/or where morality is based on rules, virtues, or rights rather than values. Consequentialism’s main rivals in intergenerational ethics are contract-based theories. This chapter first argues that consequentialism has significant comparative advantages over its contract-based rivals, especially in relation to non-identity, the absence of reciprocity, and the need for flexibility and radical critique. These advantages outweigh the challenges facing any consequentialist intergenerational ethics—including cluelessness, counterintuitive demands, and puzzles of aggregation. The chapter then explores many varieties of contemporary consequentialism, arguing that the best consequentialist approach to intergenerational justice is agnostic, moderate, collective consequentialism. Different possible futures—including futures broken by climate change or transformed by new technologies—present new ethical challenges that consequentialism has the flexibility to address. Collective consequentialism can also resolve long-standing debates about the aggregation of well-being. The chapter ends by asking how consequentialist intergenerational ethics might evaluate threats of human extinction, incorporate the value of nonhuman nature, and motivate its potentially extreme demands.

Declarations: Root and Branch Unthinking

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Peter J. Taylor ◽  
Geoff O’Brien ◽  
Phil O’Keefe
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Climate Change Policy ◽  
Complex Problem ◽  
Jane Jacobs ◽  
Change Policy ◽  
Fit For Purpose

This chapter takes the failure of current climate change policy as a given and seeks explanations and ways forward. Policy-making should be firmly grounded in the essential nature of anthropogenic climate change – a complex problem and an existential threat. It is found wanting in three fundamental aspects. International relations with its competitive preposition is found to be not fit for purpose as decision-making arena. The scientific input for decision-making underplays the ‘anthropo’ bit of climate change and therefore is found unfit for purpose. And social science contributions are found not fit for purpose because of their innate state-centric bias. To overcome the resulting impasse requires critical unthinking. The work of Jane Jacobs is chosen as guide to unthinking thereby foregrounding cities. An invitation is issued for others to provide alternate unthinking.

Combining temperature rate and level perspectives in emission metrics

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Borgar Aamaas ◽  
Terje K. Berntsen ◽  
Jan S. Fuglestvedt ◽  
Glen P. Peters
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Rate Of Change ◽  
Baseline Scenario ◽  
Natural Systems ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Global Temperature Change ◽  
Temperature Rate ◽  
Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference ◽  
Selection Of

Abstract. The ultimate goal of the United Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is reconfirmed by the Paris Agreement, is to stabilize the climate change at level that prevents dangerous anthropogenic interference, and it should be achieved within a time frame that allow the natural systems to adapt. Numerous emission metrics have been developed and applied in relation to the first target, while very few metrics have focused on the second target regarding rate of change. We present here a simple and analytical physical emission metric based on the rate of global temperature change and link that to a metric based on a target for the temperature level. The rate of change perspective either can supplement the level target or can be considered together in one commitment that needs one combined metric. Both emission metrics depend on assumptions on a temperature baseline scenario. We give some illustrations on how this framework can be used, such as different temperature rate and level constraints based on the Representative Concentration Pathways. The selection of the time horizon, for what time period and length the rate constraint is binding, and how to weight the rate and level metrics are discussed. For a combined metric, the values for short-lived climate forcers are larger in periods where the critical rate is binding, with larger temporal increases during the rate constraint period as the atmospheric perturbation timescale of the species becomes shorter. Global CO2 emissions remain the most important, or among the most important, drivers of temperature rates even during periods of binding rate constraints.

The Stern Review on Climate Change: Inconvenient Sensitivities

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 779-798 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey Mityakov ◽  
Christof Rühl
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Time Preference ◽  
Complex Problem ◽  
Policy Choices ◽  
Subjective Judgement ◽  
The Face ◽  
Stern Review ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Parameter Values ◽  
Considerable Discussion

Nicholas Stern's Review of “The Economics of Climate Change” (2007) triggered considerable discussion, essentially by condensing a complex problem – the question of how to act in the face of global warming – into juxtaposing two numbers, the cost of mitigation and the cost of climate change. The Review concludes that mitigation today is economically superior to adaptation tomorrow. The review was widely criticized for the assumption of a pure rate of time preference of almost zero, on which its conclusions seemed to depend. In this paper we argue first, that this assumption discriminates against current in favour of future generations. Second, we perform a sensitivity analysis to test for the extent to which the conclusions of the Review are indeed based on the assumption of a rate of time preference of almost zero. We demonstrate that the conclusions of the Review are no longer valid as soon as parameter values are used which are standard in economic analysis. Combined, these results raise a bigger question: how wise is it to base crucial policy choices on a model so dependent on a single, deeply subjective, judgement call?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document