From the syllabus for Religion and Ethics (Paper 2):
1.1 Environmental issues
a) Concepts of stewardship and conservation from the point of view of at least one religion and at least one secular ethical perspective; animal welfare and protection, sustainability, waste management and climate change.
b) Strengths and weaknesses of significant areas of disagreement and debate, assessment of relevant examples, legal changes and social attitudes, appropriateness and value of employing religious perspectives in these debates.
With reference to the ideas of J Lovelock and A Næss.
NOTE 1: this post draws substantially on the explanation of the science of climate change that can be found in James Garvey’s The Ethics of Climate Change: Right and Wrong in a Warming World.
Note 2 : the assumption in this post is that climate change is happening. The issue of climate change denial will be addressed in a future post.
Is climate change happening?
Yes and it is already underway. Globally, average surface temperatures have increased by 0.7 degrees over the twentieth century. This may not seem much but it is unprecedented. By 2100, an average surface temperature increase of between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees is anticipated. In order to avoid the worst case scenarios and limit that increase in temperature to around 2 degrees, the majority of climate scientists are of the view that estimated cuts in emissions of between 60 and 80% in 1990 levels by 2050. This is why the 2 degrees figure formed the basis for the 2015 Paris Agreement (see your Zig Zag notes).
Who believes this?
The main research has been undertaken by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Their website is here:
The National Academy of Sciences (which has over 2,000 of America’s best brains on its books, including 200 Nobel Prize winners) has found that the IPCC’s work on climate science was fair and accurate. Its own views on climate change are straightforward: ‘Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.’
Meanwhile in 2003, the American Meteorological Society concluded that there ‘is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the earth’s surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years…Human activities have become a major source of environmental change.’
In the same year, the American Geophysical Union adopted a statement which claims that scientific evidence strongly indicates both that the climate of the planet is changing, and that human activities are partly responsible for the changes.
The US Climate Change Science Program, which undertakes research on behalf of 13 federal agencies in the US published a report in 2006 which expanded on the science underpinning the findings of the IPCC. The report argues that the observed patterns of climate change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural factors alone – the human production of greenhouse gases is responsible as well.
Scientific opinion outside of the US is behind the IPCC too. In June 2005, just ahead of the G8 summit, the national science academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK, Brazil, China and India signed a statement in support of the findings of the IPCC. The statement claims, ”there is now strong evidence that that significant global warming is occurring…It is likely that most of the warming can be attributed to human activities.’
Following a campaign by the Royal Society in the UK, the national or regional scientific academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Sweden issued a joint statement on the science of Climate Change in 2001. A part of it reads, ‘The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise the IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes.’
In short, there is a lot of agreement among experts all over the world about both the changing climate and our role in it. Note that there are climate change sceptics, though these are very much in a minority. Perhaps the best known is Bjorn Lomborg. But his issue is actually not with the reality of climate change, but rather with the economic and political approaches being taken (or not taken) to meet the challenges of that climate change. He is a strong advocate for focusing attention and resources on what he perceives as far more pressing world problems, such as AIDS, malaria and malnutrition.
What’s causing it?
The main cause is the increased emission of greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) as a result of human activity.
How can we be sure about this?
There is an overwhelming international scientific consensus about climate change. The IPCC was established in 1988 with the aim of assessing peer reviewed, technical literature on the subject. The IPCC now has ‘very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.’ According to this organisation, ‘very high confidence’ means that there is a 9 out of 10 chance that their conclusion is correct.
Additionally, the IPCC has stated that it is ‘virtually certain’ (which it defines as having more than a 99% probability of occurrence) that the world will see warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas. There is also a 90% probability that heat waves and heavy rainfall will both increase, and a 66% probability that areas affected by drought will increase, along with the intensity of typhoons and hurricanes.
Why is the scientific community so confident about its predictions?
Climate change modelling includes natural fluctuations. A model can start with information from up to 5,000 years ago in order to check whether its predictions square with what is already known. Only a combination of anthropogenic plus natural factors account for what we are now seeing.
One of the most visually impressive results of climate modelling was reproduced by the IPCC in 2001. The report contained three graphs which compared annual global mean surface temperature as simulated by models with actually observed changes from 1860 to 2001. The third graph, which combined both natural and anthropogenic forces contributing to warming, was the most accurate. The unknown factor is what the increase in surface temperature will eventually be. Most of the predictions are scary, regardless.
Why is climate change difficult to think about?
Usually, moral responsibility depends on causal responsibility. For example, if someone is in an antique shop and drops a vase, then many people may believe that person should pay for the damage. Similarly, it could be argued that most people alive now contribute to global warming, simply by living their lives in a manner that leaves a carbon footprint.
However, the effects of flicking on a few light bulbs, putting clothes in the dryer, re-charging a mobile phone, and so on, may only minimally damage the atmosphere. The situation is more like one in which millions of people performing billions of small actions have a cumulatively catastrophic effect, not only on people we are never likely to meet on the other side of the earth, but also on people who will exist in the future. And the harm will not be evenly spread. Some places will face new extreme weather conditions. Sea levels will rise, flooding homes and destroying crops. Elsewhere, water shortages will threaten. Diseases will spread to new areas. There will be conflict. A lot of people will become displaced ‘climate refugees’. Species will disappear and whole ecosystems may well be destroyed. Lots of people who haven’t been born yet will starve to death.
Additionally, doing something about climate change requires almost unprecedented international and intergenerational co-operation. Earlier generations are going to have to make sacrifices for benefits they will never get to enjoy.
All this is difficult for people to get their heads around because of the scale of the issue in terms of both space and time, especially because we are a species whose morality is more typically based on thinking about easily identifiable harms that are happening to others who are often right in front of us. Because of this, and because nothing much that we could do as individuals can make much of a difference, we can retreat into passivity or even denial when it comes to climate change.
Whose fault is it?
The USA is responsible for more than 20% of annual global emissions, China for nearly 15%, the EU for around 14 and Russia for about 5%. Historically, the USA was also responsible for almost 30% of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions between 1850 and 2002. The EU is second, accounting for 26.5%, Russia is third with 8.1%, China is fourth with 7.6%, followed by Germany (7.6%) and the UK (6.3%).
Since 1850, the developed world has been responsible for 76% of carbon-dioxide emissions, while the developing world has contributed just 24%.
Based on wealth, high income countries have produced 617,000 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide, while low income countries have been responsible for just 51,000 million metric tons.
What should be done about it?
The philosopher Peter Singer has this to say:
‘To put it in terms a child could understand, as far as the atmosphere is concerned, the developed nations broke it. If we believe that people should contribute to fixing something in proportion to their responsibility for breaking it, then the developed nations owe it to the rest of the world to fix the problem with the atmosphere.’
Couldn’t Singer be criticised on the grounds that the developed countries did not know about the effects of greenhouse gases?
Well, they have known since 1990. And even if the damage to the environment up to then was accidental and unintended, surely it is still morally wrong for the countries of the developed world to leave everyone else in the lurch, like the driver of a car that has accidentally pranged a parked vehicle speeding off without offering to pay for at least some of the damage.
Additionally, it can be argued that the richer, developed countries should contribute more to the global effort because their emissions are the result of maintaining a higher standard of living. There is a meaningful distinction to be made between luxury emissions (e.g. resulting from, say, flying to Las Vegas for a weekend of gambling) and subsistence emissions (e.g. resulting from the efforts of a farmer in Africa to feed his family). Plus, wealthier countries are more able to afford to bear the costs involved with curtailing climate change. As Henry Shue has pointed out, ‘Among a number of parties, all of whom are bound to contribute to some common endeavour, the parties who have the most resources normally should contribute to most of the endeavour.’
Additionally, it is the poorer countries of the developing world that are already seeing the effects of climate change in terms of floods and famines. The moral obligation of richer countries to poorer ones in this respect can be reinforced by a famous thought experiment devised by Peter Singer, recreated below in a slightly amended form.
Imagine that, on the way to school, you pass a shallow pond and notice that a small child has fallen in and is in danger of drowning. You look around to see where the parents, or babysitter are, but to your surprise you see that there is no-one else there. It seems that it is up to you to make sure that the child doesn’t drown.
Would anyone disagree with the idea that we ought to wade in to pull the child out? This might mean getting your school uniform wet and being late for school. Compared with saving the child, these things do not seem to be all that important.
But what if the child is drowning in a pond in Africa but in some kind of mysterious way, you were still able to save her, would you change your answer? Singer thinks not. Physical proximity to or distance from the child is not morally relevant.
By extension (Singer does not mention this), suppose the child was drowning in a climate change-induced flood in the year 2080. If we could avoid this scenario by taking action now, in order to ensure the sustainability of African ecosystems, are we morally impelled to do so? Again, the answer would seem to be ‘yes’.
As far as ensuring that international agreements on limiting greenhouse gases are honoured, James Garvey has suggested that economic sanctions are imposed on those countries that do not honour their commitments. Additionally, encouraging a ‘we’re all in this together’ could be fostered by treaties ensuring that all parties have to make sacrifices to the extent that they are able. This could offset the risk of countries defecting from them.
What is emissions trading?
Emissions trading is a capitalist solution to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions and is a method through which countries that emit more than their fair share of those gases can still meet their targets. They do so by purchasing extra capacity from other countries that have been set limits on emissions that they fall below. As high emitters tend to be rich countries, and developing countries are poor ones, everyone benefits. For example, LEDCs (Less Economically Developed Countries) have something they can sell that will help them to raise money to pay for their own needs while MEDCs (More Economically Developed Countries) get to meet their targets. Additionally, LEDCs are provided with an incentive to put their signature to binding agreements on quotas, as without these quotas they would have nothing to sell.
Carbon emission trading for CO2 and other greenhouse has already been introduced in China, the European Union and other countries as a key tool for the alleviation of climate change, and it possible that at some point in the future, a fully global form of this kind of trading will be contemplated.
In the absence of an alternative, and even though he admits to being no ‘starry-eyed enthusiast for the global capitalist system we have today’, Peter Singer is broadly supportive of this approach. For example, he notes that on utilitarian grounds, it would provide a way to overcome the problem that a rich but colder country like Canada would face in attempting to restrict its emissions, simply by dint of the fact that Canadians may suffer from undue hardship if they were unable to use more energy to keep warm in the winter. All that the Canadian government would need to do is purchase permits that allow them to exceed their quota from other countries that have some spare capacity. Without such an efficient system in place, any reductions would be likely to be lower as a result of lack of adherence to quota allocations. In other words, everyone gets to ‘flourish’.
However, emissions trading has been criticised on the grounds that it actually stops high emitters from facing up to their responsibilities. By analogy, it is like someone in a relationship paying someone else to remain monogamous so they can cheat on their partner. This analogy is explored in the following video (by the creators of the now defunct cheatneutral website):
Supporters of the normative theory of virtue ethics, according to which morality is more to do with the cultivation of desirable character traits rather than hedonic calculations, might agree with this analogy, and therefore be opposed to carbon trading on the grounds that it provides a way for rich countries to conveniently sidestep an ethical obligation to exhibit more restraint and self-discipline in their environmental policies. Additionally, the video includes a sequence where one of its authors points out that carbon offsetting simply defers the very necessary lifestyle, industrial and economic changes that will eventually be required to avert the worst consequences of climate change.
*some information on Cheat Neutral can still be found HERE.
What about dissenting views? Examples include: ‘There’s no point in doing anything because….there’s too much uncertainty about climate change/it’s too expensive to pay for/alternative technologies will eventually save us/nothing much that I do will make much of a difference.
First of all, the philosopher James Garvey has argued that even if the extent of climate change is unknown, that it is better to err on the side of caution and take action while we still can. To justify his point, he uses the example of someone thinking purchasing a house with a fine, cliff-top view, knowing that coastal erosion will mean that it will fall into the sea at some point in 50 or 100 years’ time. Garvey’s point is that the uncertainty surrounding the future of the property provides no good reasons for doing nothing. At the very least, the buyer should take out insurance, and we should therefore also take similar precautions when it comes to climate change. Garvey’s argument could be used in response to Lomborg (see above).
As far as the expense of future warming is concerned, doing nothing has been shown to be not an option. According to Nicholas Stern, future economic and social disruption could be on a scale comparable to the great wars and economic depression of the first half of the 20th Century. Again, this argument could be used in response to Lomborg.
Additionally, the view that alternative technologies will save us is thought to be naïve. For example, about 2 million 1 megawatt windmills would be needed to offset our current reliance on coal. As of 2008, only 40,000 had been built.
Lastly, although it could be said that individual acts won’t make much difference when it comes to reducing our carbon footprint, the cumulative effect over the course of a lifetime is not inconsiderable.
The Drowning Child
Imagine that, on the way to school, you pass a shallow pond and notice that a small child has fallen in and is in danger of drowning. You look around to see where the parents, or babysitter are, but to your surprise you see that there is no-one else there. It seems that it is up to you to make sure that the child doesn’t drown.
Would anyone disagree with the idea that we ought to wade in to pull the child out? This might mean getting your school uniform wet and being late for school. Compared with saving the child, these things do not seem to be all that important.
But what if the child is drowning in a pond in Africa but in some kind of mysterious way, you were still able to save her, would you change your answer? Singer thinks not. Physical proximity to or distance from the child is not morally relevant.
By extension (Singer does not mention this), suppose the child was drowning in a climate change-induced flood in the year 2080. If we could avoid this scenario by taking action now, in order to ensure the sustainability of African ecosystems, are we morally impelled to do so? Again, the answer would seem to be ‘yes’.
As far as ensuring that international agreements on limiting greenhouse gases are honoured, James Garvey has suggested that economic sanctions are imposed on those countries that do not honour their commitments. Additionally, encouraging a ‘we’re all in this together’ could be fostered by treaties ensuring that all parties have to make sacrifices to the extent that they are able. This could offset the risk of countries defecting from them.
What is carbon trading?
Carbon trading is a method through which countries who emit more than their fair share of greenhouse gases can still meet their targets. They do so through purchasing extra capacity from other countries that have been set limits on emissions that they fall below. As high emitters tend to be rich ones, and developing countries are poor ones, everyone benefits. However, carbon trading has been criticised on the grounds that it actually stops high emitters from facing up to their responsibilities. By analogy, it is like someone in a relationship paying someone else to remain monogamous so they can cheat on their partner.
From a description found on the (now apparently defunct) cheatneutral website:
As the website explains: “When you cheat on your partner you add to the heartbreak, pain and jealousy in the atmosphere. Cheat neutral offsets your cheating by funding someone else to be faithful and not cheat. This neutralises the pain and unhappy emotion and leaves you with a clear conscience.”
What if you are always monogamous, or just single and celibate? You can still “get paid for not getting laid” if you register to become a Cheatneutral offset project. “All you have to do is agree to stay monogamous or single – and if we match you with a suitable cheater, you’ll get paid to neutralise their cheating.”
Cheatneutral is, you will have guessed, not really encouraging anyone to cheat on their partner. The website is a spoof, intended to highlight the absurdities of carbon offsetting.
As the site puts it: “Cheatneutral is a joke. Carbon offsetting is about paying for the right to carry on emitting carbon.
“The carbon offset industry sold £60m of offsets last year, and is rapidly growing. Carbon offsetting is also a joke.”
What about dissenting views? Examples include: ‘There’s no point in doing anything because….there’s too much uncertainty about climate change/it’s too expensive to pay for/alternative technologies will eventually save us/nothing much that I do will make much of a difference.
First of all, the philosopher James Garvey has argued that even if the extent of climate change is unknown, that it is better to err on the side of caution and take action while we still can. To justify his point, he uses the example of someone thinking purchasing a house with a fine, cliff-top view, knowing that coastal erosion will mean that it will fall into the sea at some point in 50 or 100 years’ time. Garvey’s point is that the uncertainty surrounding the future of the property provides no good reasons for doing nothing. At the very least, the buyer should take out insurance, and we should therefore also take similar precautions when it comes to climate change. Garvey’s argument could be used in response to Lomborg (see above).
As far as the expense of future warming is concerned, doing nothing has been shown to be not an option. According to Nicholas Stern, future economic and social disruption could be on a scale comparable to the great wars and economic depression of the first half of the 20th Century. Again, this argument could be used in response to Lomborg.
Additionally, the view that alternative technologies will save us is thought to be naïve. For example, about 2 million 1 megawatt windmills would be needed to offset our current reliance on coal. As of 2008, only 40,000 had been built.
Lastly, although it could be said that individual acts won’t make much difference when it comes to reducing our carbon footprint, the cumulative effect over the course of a lifetime is not inconsiderable.