PHIL 104 (STOLZE) Notes on Heather Widdows, Global Ethics: An Introduction, chapter 10

Topics in Chapter Ten Environmental Ethics Climate Ethics

A Thought Experiment: Invasion from Space “Suppose our planet were invaded by an intelligent and very powerful species of aliens that can easily impose their will upon us. Suppose these aliens have studied the life history of our planet and they have come to understand how we have wreaked havoc on our planet, driving many species into extinction, and how we still threaten many other species with extinction. In short, suppose these aliens discover that we are like a cancer on our biosphere. Suppose further that these aliens are fully aware of the differences between us and the other species on the planet. Suppose they clearly recognize that we more closely resemble them in power and intelligence than any other species on the planet does. Even so, suppose the aliens still choose to protect those very species we threaten. They begin by forcing us to use no more resources than we need for a decent life, and this significantly reduces the threat we pose to many endangered species. However, the aliens want to do more. In order to save more endangered species, they decide to exterminate a certain portion of our human population, reducing our numbers to those we had when we were more in balance with the rest of the biosphere. Now if this were to happen, would we have moral grounds to object to these actions taken by the aliens?” (From James Sterba, “Rethinking Global Justice from the Perspective of All Living Nature and What Difference it Makes,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, January 2007)

Two Conceptions of Value Instrumental = “nature should be protected because it is useful to humanity” Intrinsic = “nature should be protected for its own sake”

The Climate Crisis: Likely Effects Temperature rise Sea-level rise Extreme weather events such as heat waves, floods, hurricanes, and droughts Large regions of the world becoming uninhabitable Large-scale displacement of human communities Species extinction Ocean acidification Destruction of land and sea infrastructures

Hurricane Sandy—The Truth LhpiXTYy84Uy6xiG027P6OaEl7UNpCIii&v=3RtezSDsoes#at=17

The Climate Crisis: Two Kinds of Response Mitigations: Reducing emissions Reducing fossil fuel use Reducing animal emissions Adaptions: Renewable fuel Sea defenses Technological defenses, such a genetically modified crops or geoengineering

The Climate Crisis: Practical Measures Carbon quotas, trading policies, or taxes Clean development initiatives Adaption programs Gas extraction from landfill programs Renewable energy programs Waste reduction and re-use

Problems with the Ethics of Climate Change Simple vs. dispersed moral causes and effects Intergenerational agency Theoretical ineptitude The problem annoys people

Some Moral Principles for Addressing Climate Change Polluter pays Ability to pay Equal Shares Hybrid principles

The Polluter Pays Principle “You Broke It—You Fix It!” “Since 1850, the developed world is responsible for a total of 76 per cent of carbon-dioxide emissions, while the developing world has contributed just 24 per cent (Source: James Garvey, The Ethics of Climate Change, p. 70).

The Polluter Pays Argument: “You Broke It—You Fix It!” 1.People should contribute to fixing something in proportion to their responsibility for breaking it. 2.The developed nations have “broken” the earth’s climate system. 3.Therefore, the developed nations owe it to the rest of the world to fix the problem with the earth’s climate system.

Objections to the Polluter Pays Argument The damage was done by previous generations. The damage to the Earth’s climate is an accident or an unintentional outcome.

Ability to Pay Argument 1.The greater the ability to do what is right, the greater the obligation to do what is right. 2.The developed nations have a greater ability to take action on climate change. 3.Therefore, the developed nations have a greater obligation to take action on climate change.

The Equal Shares Argument 1. Everyone is entitled to an equal share of greenhouse gas emissions that flow into the global “carbon sink.” 2.Rich nations like the U.S. have already used more than their share. 3.Therefore, rich nations like the U.S. should immediately begin to cut back on their greenhouse gas emissions.

A Final Argument: “From We to I” 1.If we in the developed world are wrong to do nothing to stop runaway climate change, even though we can, then I as an individual am also wrong to do nothing—especially if I can. 2.But we in the developed world are doing nothing to stop runaway climate change, even though we can. 3.Therefore, I as an individual am also wrong to do nothing— especially if I can.