The following is from Nature.com
Climate Change as a Challenge to Ethical Action
Climate change has been described as a "perfect moral storm" because it brings together three major challenges to ethical action in a mutually reinforcing way (Gardiner 2011a). The first challenge stems from the fact that climate change is a truly global phenomenon. Once emitted, greenhouse gas emissions can have climate effects anywhere on the planet, regardless of their source (IPCC 2007). This is often said to result in a prisoner's dilemma or tragedy of the commons structure played out between nation states: although collectively all countries would prefer to limit global emissions so as to reduce the risk of severe or catastrophic impacts, when acting individually, each still prefers to continue emitting unimpeded (e.g., Soroos 1997, Helm 2008, but see Gardiner 2011a). At the same time, there are skewed vulnerabilities: at least in the short- to medium-term, many of the most vulnerable countries and people are those who have emitted the least historically, and whose emissions levels continue to be relatively low. This appears to be seriously unfair and casts a notable shadow over both practical and theoretical efforts to secure global cooperation.
The second challenge is that current emissions have profoundly intergenerational effects. Emissions of the most prominent greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, typically persist in the atmosphere for a long time, contributing to negative climate impacts for centuries, or even millennia (IPCC 2007). This too seems unfair, especially if future negative impacts are severe and cumulative. In addition, the temporal diffusion of climate change gives rise to an ethical collective action problem that is even more challenging than the traditional tragedy of the commons both in its shape and because normal kinds of cooperation do not seem to be possible across generations.
The third challenge to ethical action is that our theoretical tools are underdeveloped in many of the relevant areas, such as international justice, intergenerational ethics, scientific uncertainty, and the appropriate relationship between humans and the rest of nature (e.g., Jamieson 1992). For example, climate change raises questions about the (moral) value of nonhuman nature, such as whether we have obligations to protect nonhuman animals, unique places, or nature as a whole, and what form such obligations take if we do (see, e.g., Jamieson 2003, Palmer 2011). In addition, the presence of scientific uncertainty and the potential for catastrophic outcomes put internal pressure on the standard economic approach to environmental problems (e.g., Sagoff 2007, Stern 2007, Gardiner 2011a), and play a role in arguments for a precautionary approach in environmental law and policy that some see as an alternative (see, e.g., Sunstein 2005, Whiteside 2006).
As you are now an expert on climate change in every aspect, choose an extended writing topic to complete. This will require further research on your part, so be sure to cite any sources you use. Some topics will require creative thinking, others more deductive research and reasoning. Some will require you to think critically and apply an ethical framework to the topic. Be thorough in your coverage of the topic. The following is a list of ideas or questions to begin your investigation. Produce a thorough examination of your chosen topic and be sure to think critically and consider all points of view, including the ethical implications of the topic.
Climate Change as a Challenge to Ethical Action
Climate change has been described as a "perfect moral storm" because it brings together three major challenges to ethical action in a mutually reinforcing way (Gardiner 2011a). The first challenge stems from the fact that climate change is a truly global phenomenon. Once emitted, greenhouse gas emissions can have climate effects anywhere on the planet, regardless of their source (IPCC 2007). This is often said to result in a prisoner's dilemma or tragedy of the commons structure played out between nation states: although collectively all countries would prefer to limit global emissions so as to reduce the risk of severe or catastrophic impacts, when acting individually, each still prefers to continue emitting unimpeded (e.g., Soroos 1997, Helm 2008, but see Gardiner 2011a). At the same time, there are skewed vulnerabilities: at least in the short- to medium-term, many of the most vulnerable countries and people are those who have emitted the least historically, and whose emissions levels continue to be relatively low. This appears to be seriously unfair and casts a notable shadow over both practical and theoretical efforts to secure global cooperation.
The second challenge is that current emissions have profoundly intergenerational effects. Emissions of the most prominent greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, typically persist in the atmosphere for a long time, contributing to negative climate impacts for centuries, or even millennia (IPCC 2007). This too seems unfair, especially if future negative impacts are severe and cumulative. In addition, the temporal diffusion of climate change gives rise to an ethical collective action problem that is even more challenging than the traditional tragedy of the commons both in its shape and because normal kinds of cooperation do not seem to be possible across generations.
The third challenge to ethical action is that our theoretical tools are underdeveloped in many of the relevant areas, such as international justice, intergenerational ethics, scientific uncertainty, and the appropriate relationship between humans and the rest of nature (e.g., Jamieson 1992). For example, climate change raises questions about the (moral) value of nonhuman nature, such as whether we have obligations to protect nonhuman animals, unique places, or nature as a whole, and what form such obligations take if we do (see, e.g., Jamieson 2003, Palmer 2011). In addition, the presence of scientific uncertainty and the potential for catastrophic outcomes put internal pressure on the standard economic approach to environmental problems (e.g., Sagoff 2007, Stern 2007, Gardiner 2011a), and play a role in arguments for a precautionary approach in environmental law and policy that some see as an alternative (see, e.g., Sunstein 2005, Whiteside 2006).
As you are now an expert on climate change in every aspect, choose an extended writing topic to complete. This will require further research on your part, so be sure to cite any sources you use. Some topics will require creative thinking, others more deductive research and reasoning. Some will require you to think critically and apply an ethical framework to the topic. Be thorough in your coverage of the topic. The following is a list of ideas or questions to begin your investigation. Produce a thorough examination of your chosen topic and be sure to think critically and consider all points of view, including the ethical implications of the topic.
- How can MEDCs help developing nations become more developed without following the MEDCs path as far as greenhouse gas emissions is concerned?
- Should population control in countries with rapid population growth be required or encouraged? What are the ethical implications of this action? Are there more ethical ways of encouraging slower population growth?
- Should LEDCs be required to lower greenhouse gas emissions? Is it ethical for developed countries to force limitations on developing nations?
- What is geoengineering? What are some of the ethical issues surrounding geoengineering and climate change? Are geoengineering reasonable? What could their long term impacts be?
- Should the onus for climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies be placed equally on all nations? Should it be distributed differently?
- Should MEDCs be required to lower their standard of living and consumption habits in order to be more equal with the rest of the world?
Sources:
The Nature Education Knowledge Project, Ethics and Global Climate Change, http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/ethics-and-global-climate-change-84226631
