Climate change

1. Climate change What should we do?

2. What are the deeper issues? More Earth Days! Find new technologies! Stop being selfish! Provide incentives!

3. Ranger of Holy Cross • A ranger on patrol met a group of climbers, • one of whom bragged (unaware who the ranger was) that he was going to celebrate reaching the summit by throwing toilet paper off the top.

4. Ranger of Holy Cross • The ranger replied that this was “uncalled for”. Does the ranger’s response make sense?

5. Heavy clock • As the wind is blowing your papers away, you use your heavy clock to weigh them down. • Your friend comments: “That’s inappropriate. A clock is for telling the time!” Does your friend’s comment make sense?

6. Holmes Rolston: “The beauty, integrity, stability of an ecosystem can put constraints on appropriate human conduct in both small and larger ways… To make of nature a mere plaything is to profane it, just as to make playthings is persons is to misunderstand them.”

7. Environmental ethics Its beauty, integrity & stability Appreciate, conserve & respect I value X X is valuable

8. Humans & nature

9. Environmental ethics Ecology Deep Ecology Shallow Ecology Study of Eco-centric views Study of Human-centric views

10. Fundamental issues • Why should we care about our environment? • Shallow & Deep Ecology • Who is responsible for our environment? • Individual & Collective responsibility • Who bears what responsibility?

11. The practical & the intellectual • Climate change is a practical problem • But it is also an intellectual problem • What counts as a good solution? • What is the responsibility each country & each person should bear? • A matter of fairness • Principle • Implementation

12. Climate change: the problem • Average temperature up by 0.74°C since the late 1800s. • It is expected to go up another 1.8°C to 4°C by the year 2100 if no action is taken. • Potentially larger increase in temperature than any century-long trend in the last 10,000 years.

13. Climate change: the cause • Direct link between amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and average global temperature • Steady rise of GHG amount since the time of the Industrial Revolution • Most abundant greenhouse gas: Carbon Dioxide • The product of burning fossil fuels. 

14. US Department of Energy

15. Expert consensus • Most scientists agree that global warming is occurring, and it is significantly due to human action. • Assessment Report by UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

16. IPCC, 2007

18. Climate change: what are we doing? • The issue of climate change emerged in the 1970s when scientists discovered that the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) damaged the ozone layer • In 1985, developed countries signed the Montreal Protocol • Effectively phased out the use of CFCs in 1999 for developed nations • And 10 years after that for developing nations.

19. Climate change: what are we doing? • In 1988, the UN Environment Program and the World Meteorological Office set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). • In 1990, the IPCC reported that global warming was real and a global treaty was required to deal with it.

20. Kyoto Protocol (1997) • Legally-binding targets for countries to limit or reduce their GHG emissions by agreed-upon periods. • Different targets for different countries • Rejected by the United States, Canada, Australia

21. Opposition George Bush • Refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol • "it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy."

22. What should we do?

23. What is a fair way to allocate responsibility to each country? How do we get each country to accept their fair responsibility?

24. What is a fair way to allocate responsibility to each country? Specifics of responsibility allocation Underlying principle

25. The sink • All villagers put waste into giant sink • No one knows what happens after the disposal • Those who consume more dispose more into the sink • Capacity of sink is nearly used up. Bad smells, infection, etc. Who should clear the sink?

26. The Historical Principle • Fair solution for present problem depends on history of problem • Countries who caused climate change should be responsible for restoration

27. “Even though poorest nations have not contributed as much to greenhouse emissions, they have nevertheless benefited from the increased productivity that has come from the use of the global sink by industrialisednations.”

28. Response The world’s poorest have not benefited from increased productivity because they cannot afford to buy the products produced by industrialisednations.

29. But we didn’t know the sink would clog! Let’s forget the past and start afresh! But we didn’t know there would be climate change due to our actions!

30. The Time-Slice Principles • Only concerned with the present situation • Past is not morally relevant Equal Share Aiding the worst off Greatest happiness

31. ‘Equal share’ • Each person should get equitable benefit and responsibility • Need to determine what is environmentally sustainable • Focus on per capita emission? • What would be equitable in our present context?

32. ‘Aiding the worst off’ • Those who genuinely need more should get more • Poor & rich countries • Rich benefits only if doing so benefits poor more than otherwise • Still, developed countries should bear more responsibility

33. ‘Greatest happiness’ • Difficulty in calculating outcomes • Rule implementation gives optimal outcome • ‘You broke it, you fix it’ • Law of diminishing returns • Marginal utility • Still, developed countries should bear more responsibility

34. What’s the point of ethical reflection? ‘If we, as citizens of the industrialised nations, do not understand what would be a fair solution to global warming, then we cannot understand how flagrantly self-serving the position of those signing even the Kyoto Protocol is.’ - Peter Singer

35. What is a fair way to allocate responsibility to each country? How do we get each country to accept their fair responsibility?

36. Review • Climate change • Moral responsibility • Historical Principle • Time-Slice Principles • Ethical principles & Public policies

37. Philosophy & Public Affairs Foreign Talent, Local Glory: Can National Excellence Be Outsourced?

38. Caring about the future • Suppose a cure for cancer has been discovered. Once this cure is made available, it will save the lives of 100 million people. • However, its production is possible only if certain extremely toxic gases are released. These gases will not cause the slightest harm to any creature for 200 years. • But, in 2212, the gases will definitely cause the ozone layer to suddenly be depleted by an enormous amount. Let us assume that this will result in fatal skin diseases to 1 billion people. • Should this cure be produced?

39. “Without a doubt! This cure will save the lives of 100 million actual people. And its cost? The lives of 1 billion non-existent people! But why should the interests of non-existent people matter at all? • If the interests of non-existent people matter, then you better reproduce as much as you can. For there are many non-actual people who would be actual, if we reproduce. By not reproducing as much as we can, we are thereby disregarding the interests of future people.”

40. Response 1a • What matters is the actual harm that will occur in 2212, not the harming of non-existent people in 2012. • The actual harm matters, regardless of when it occurs.

41. Critique of Response 1a • What matters is the actual enjoyment that will occur after one is born, not the enjoyment of a non-existent person. • Actual enjoyment matters, regardless of when it occurs. Surely this cannot be right!!?

42. Response 2 • Not all possible people are future people • Possible people are those who will exist if certain conditions are met. • Future people are those who will exist given that certain conditions will be met. • The certainty of the existence of future people makes them morally significant. • The possibility of possible people does not make them morally significant.

43. Response 2 - continued • The interests of actual people matter regardless of when they exist. • But the interests of possible people who merely could be actual aren’t the interests of actual people.

44. Objections?

45. Are future people morally significant? • Is it be wrong to benefit actual people at the expense of future people? • Energy sources • Long-term environmental impact • Reproduction (parental bliss)