Climate change is potentially the most global and intergenerational ethical issue that we will face. When investigating climate change, the initial questions that come to mind (What causes climate change? What will be the effects of this change? What can we do to stop it?) all can be answered through falsifiable scientific research. Although it's expected that a small portion of the research may be contested or abstract, we all have the opportunity to hold a broader understanding of climate change and how it may affect our lives. But delve deeper and the ethical considerations begin to complicate this understanding, raising other questions that are significantly more complex to answer.
Should the economy grow, future generations are likely to be much wealthier than us, so who should fund the changes?
An interesting take on the ethical issues of climate change from Broome is to consider what sacrifices we, the relatively poor (present generation), must make for the relatively wealthy (future generations). The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change undertook a (mainly) cost-benefit analysis and concluded that the benefit gained by reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be far greater than the cost of reducing them. This suggests that we should prioritise the wellbeing of the future generations, as the expenses involved will be offset by the socio-environmental conditions that we will experience. However, these benefits are likely not to be felt for at least another century, so the present generation will bear the economic burden, as well as a lifestyle overhaul without firsthand experience of the rewards. This leads us to the next question...
What are the implications for us, should we give absolute priority to the future?
Firstly, there are the obvious economic implications to overhaul energy infrastructure, transport mechanisms and frankly the entire economy. If greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are reduced by 670 million metric tons a year (11% of 2008's USA emissions), the annual economic cost is projected to be $35 billion annually. This gives us an idea of the sheer scale involved in overhauling an economy, even though this is not nearly enough to reduce anthropogenic emissions entirely. There would also be the obvious social impacts - our lives are completely ruled by our consumption-heavy society. There would be an immediate impact on the livelihood of those working within the fossil fuel sector (2.5 million U.S. jobs in 2015) and due to our current infrastructure, there is likely to be complete chaos should we rapidly reduce emissions.
Getty Images/Digital Vision
Will our response to climate change address social justice?
As previously discussed, reducing emissions will bring significant economic cost. Geographically, many areas are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, including many islands and coastal areas. Should they be responsible for the cost of sea walls or even extensive climate migration despite the fact they will be affected through no fault of their own? For example, Bangladesh was named the most vulnerable country to climate change in 2014, but they are ranked 142nd out of 183 countries in 2015's Human Development Index. Should they have to fund their adaptations to the changing climate? Should this fall to the corporations and businesses who profit from releasing emissions? Or should we all take equal responsibility and share the costs globally? As pressing as these questions may be, these arguments over culpability take away from the urgent need to act now.
Where does international development fit in?
Furthermore, some would argue that developing countries have a right to continue emitting greenhouse gases. In fact, Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, spoke about this at the start of the COP 21 Conference in Paris, referring to 'common but differentiated responsibilities'. This highlights the moral issues that arise when developed countries, who have grown their economies through emissions, try to enforce low-emission policies in countries where poverty is rife.
Furthermore, some would argue that developing countries have a right to continue emitting greenhouse gases. In fact, Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, spoke about this at the start of the COP 21 Conference in Paris, referring to 'common but differentiated responsibilities'. This highlights the moral issues that arise when developed countries, who have grown their economies through emissions, try to enforce low-emission policies in countries where poverty is rife.
(And finally...) What are our obligations to different species and nature as a whole?
Global warming is (almost certainly) anthropogenic in nature, but the natural world and other species are likely to be affected as much - if not more so - as ourselves. The common rhetoric in the media and in discussions is the implications for the future of the human race, but in fact, all species are vulnerable. In the last century, extinction rates have climbed up to 100 times higher! Morally, we have a duty to protect these animals, particularly when the responsibility for this change lies at our doorstep.
Global warming is (almost certainly) anthropogenic in nature, but the natural world and other species are likely to be affected as much - if not more so - as ourselves. The common rhetoric in the media and in discussions is the implications for the future of the human race, but in fact, all species are vulnerable. In the last century, extinction rates have climbed up to 100 times higher! Morally, we have a duty to protect these animals, particularly when the responsibility for this change lies at our doorstep.
There are so many more ethical issues to be explored due to the enormity of the subject, however, this should not be used as an excuse to halt negotiations or decisions relating to action on climate! Climate change agreements cannot be paused or ignored in order to gauge responsibility or hide from costs, as despite all the talk about ethics, those involved would be committing the single most morally corrupt crime in history.
Be First to Post Comment !
Post a Comment