Dealing with developed countries: control or incentive?

On October 9 2009, the Group of 77 (or the G-77, a coalition of developing nations) and China issued a press statement on the last day of the Bangkok Climate Talks concerning developed countries’ continued commitment to the Kyoto Protocol (KP), insisting it is a critical component to the success of the upcoming Copenhagen climate change summit.

According to the statement, throughout the talks in Bangkok, developed countries had averted their interests away from the KP and instead shed favourable light on forming a new agreement which would set new national targets, rather than the international legally-binding targets of the KP. This new attitude is dangerous, especially at this crucial time where the growing threat of a devastating global crisis urges the need for intensified action against climate change; this concern, the following statement addresses:

" The replacement of the KP with such a loose internation arrangement will result in the drastic downgrading of international disciplines over developed countries in their emission reduction targets and efforts." (G-77, 2009).

To avoid such leniency in developed countries, the G-77 and China demand that the developed countries in the KP enter the 2nd commitment period in 2013 (the 1st commitment of the KP ends in 2012) as legally obliged to, and pledge to deepen emission cuts, collectively and individually, while the US (not part of the KP) should also make such commitments. This would ensure the necessary action against climate change from the developed countries, and the G-77 and China voice that it is also expected and demanded by the world public.

The solution the G-77 and China presented in their statement is one of regulatory control, as it demands the developed countries of the KP to specific figures of emission cuts. An alternative would be an economic incentive, a process of control which would motivate the developed countries towards a course of action. An economic incentive suitable for this case would be the application of marketable pollution permits. Instead of the developed countries establishing solid figures of emission cuts, the total emissions goal of all the countries together would be the only figure in consideration. Permits would be distributed to the developed countries in the KP, and the countries would freely trade permits amongst themselves. As long as the total emissions goal is sufficient, and the each country obtains the appropriate number of permits in accordance to their individual emissions by the specified goal time, this process would be effective in preventing the consequences of climate change we would otherwise face.

However, such an ideal outcome is not realistic. As this is a critical case on an international level, we cannot risk the uncertainty of marketable pollution permits, especially since it would be ineffective in comparison to the stricter policies of the 2nd commitment of the KP as proposed. The economic incentive allows for complications and leniency. There would be conflict in the establishment of a single emissions goal, as some countries are greater emitters than others. The trading of permits would cause problems, since it could be done irrationally, or based on economic or political - not environmental - agendas. In comparison, the regulatory control as proposed by the G-77 and China includes a collective goal for all the countries as well as the individual goals for each country. It is legally-binding internationally, and therefore leaves less room for lax commitment from all the countries.

The G-77 began as a coalition of 77 countries, but expanded to include 130 developing nations. It was established for the very purpose of giving leverage to those nations in the United Nations. As developing nations, they must support their own developing economy; they do not have the wealth and the means to take significant action against climate change, yet they are the ones who suffer from the consequences of climate change brought on mostly by the developed world. In the press statement, they ask the developed countries to not abandon the KP, enter the 2nd commitment of the KP as legally obliged to, and possibly prevent the world from suffering a global crisis; it’s their plea to the developed countries to take responsibility.


References

G-77. “Group of 77 and China press statement on the imperative of the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol as a key component of the Copenhagen outcome.” Third World Network. 9 October 2009. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/info.service/2009/20091003/G77_press_statement_9.pdf. Retrieved 15 November 2009.

“About the Group of 77.” The Group of 77. 2008. http://www.g77.org/doc/. Retrieved 15 November 2009.

You Won! Averting Climate Change with Monetary Incentives

The unfortunate truth about climate change is that it is our fault. Human activities are responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse gases currently polluting the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the most common form of greenhouse gas, and unless levels of carbon emissions decrease soon, the planet will undoubtedly experience dramatic and permanent climate change. In an article published in the London Guardian on 2 December 2008 entitled “Whistling in the Wind”, author George Monbiot argues that in order to avert the catastrophic global warming predicted by even the most optimistic models, immediate emergency measures must be taken. His suggestions take the form of regulatory controls meant to quickly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere. One particular suggestion made by Monbiot pertains to the aviation industry. He argues that the level of air traffic must be severely reduced by “setting a cap on the number of [airport] landing slots, which will fall every year until it reaches 5% of current capacity” (Monbiot, 2008). While forcibly limiting the number of aircraft permitted to fly will certainly lead to a notable reduction of carbon emissions, I believe there is a more effective, albeit slightly unconventional, method by which the emissions produced by the aviation industry can be lessened. It calls for the development of new, more environmentally-friendly types of aircraft, through implementation of an economic incentive in the form of a monetary prize.

Flying in an airplane may be one of the greatest negative environmental impacts an individual can make; this is made painfully clear in a previous article submitted to the Guardian by Monbiot (Monbiot, 2006). Although the carbon emissions per person and per unit distance of a jet aircraft are about half that of a conventional automobile, the vast distances travelled by airplanes and the large number of passengers they carry mean that the overall amount of carbon dioxide produced per flight is about 1.2 tonnes per person. Another issue with high-flying jets is the contrail they produce. These small, high altitude clouds can trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to a warming effect 2.7 times that of carbon dioxide. To make matters worse, there is no known “technofix” to these problems: according to the UK’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, “[The basic gas turbine engine] has been the dominant form of aircraft engine for 50 years and there is no serious suggestion that this will change in the foreseeable future” (Monbiot, 2006). There is no easy and economically desirable way to lower the amount of emissions produced by the aviation industry, argues Monbiot. Therefore, regulatory controls must be enforced.

One potential form of control is to tax aviation fuel. However, this proves to be impossible, because the taxation of aviation fuel is prohibited under international law (Monbiot, 2006). Therefore, the only feasible form of control is to limit the number of aircraft allowed to fly. Monbiot’s argument makes sense, but I believe it would prove extremely difficult to implement. According to the US Bureau of Transport Statistics, American airports alone receive nearly 9.5 million individual flights annually, and that number is increasing every year (BTS, 2009). The modern global economy relies on aircraft for the fast transport of people and goods across the world. Even those flights which serve only to convenience wealthy vacationers cannot be eliminated, for it would wreak havoc in regions heavily dependent upon tourism as a source of income. To do away with the vast majority of international air travel would have serious negative effects upon the world’s social and economic systems, and is therefore unacceptable. While the aviation industry’s emissions must be drastically reduced, Monbiot’s regulatory control over air traffic levels may not be the most effective method.

With neither taxation nor flight capping feasible options, perhaps attention should be again turned to the notion of a “technofix”. Although there is little innovation left in the gas turbine engine, other propulsion systems and types of aircraft may let prove effective at meeting the aviation industry’s needs, while keeping carbon emissions to a minimum. It is therefore my suggestion that, instead of placing restrictions on airlines, an economic incentive should be provided to aircraft manufacturers to promote the development of alternative styles of air travel. This could be in the form of a monetary prize similar to the X Prize. Many different X Prizes are currently available in a wide array of fields, including environmental research. The most successful X Prize to date has been the Ansari X Prize, which, through the promise of $10 million for the first privately-funded team to build and launch a spacecraft into orbit, literally created the commercial space industry. Surely, a prize for the first non-fossil fuel powered aircraft to carry a certain payload from London to New York could accomplish a similar feat. Such a prize could prove far more effective at reducing the aviation industry’s carbon footprint than any regulatory control. Rather than cause social and economic instability, a prize could foster economic growth and further scientific and technical understanding as new companies are founded and new technologies are developed. If the new aviation technologies prove affordable enough, then the prize could result in eventual replacement of the global air fleet. Thus, regulatory control and economic incentive may bring about similar results: a dramatic reduction in the number of operating jet-powered aircraft. The key difference is that one is brought about by forceful restriction, while the other comes through encouragement of creativity and experimentation.

When it comes to carbon emissions, the aviation industry is one of the world’s most guilty parties. In the absence of taxations or effective technological fixes, the only possible options are to limit the number of aircraft allowed to fly, or develop an entirely new form of environmentally friendly aircraft. George Monbiot’s flight-capping plan would certainly work, but it may come at a very high social and economic cost. Thus, given the options, the establishment of a prize as an economic incentive is far more appealing. The world faces a very real threat of catastrophic climate change. The worst-case scenarios predicted by many scientists will almost certainly come to pass unless a focused and concerted effort is made to reduce our carbon emissions. Action must be taken; will history view our era as a time of oppressive regulations, or of remarkable innovation?

REFERENCES

Bureau of Transport Statistics. (2009). "Flights - All Carriers, All Airports". Table. United States Bureau of Transport Statistics. http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=2. Accessed 11 November 2009.

Monbiot,George (2008). "Whistling in the Wind". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/
2008/dec/02/climate-change-lord-turner. Accessed 11 November 2009.

Monbiot, George. (2006). "On the Flight Path to Global Meltdown". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/21/travelsenvironmentalimpact.ethicalliving. Accessed 11 November 2009.

The Ethics of Eating Less Meat to Stop Climate Change

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/save-the-planet-eat-less-meat/1562439.aspx?storypage=1

In a recent article published in the Canberra Times, the author, Roland Miller McCall, argues that people should reduce meat consumption in their diets in an effort to reduce emissions and stop climate change. The Australian author states that meat is a very large part of a typical diet in his country and that there is now a large campaign being fronted by Sir Paul McCartney that encourages people to have Meat Free Mondays (2009). McCall proceeds in presenting several facts and statistics throughout his article. For instance, McCall (2009) states that 18% of global emissions are due to livestock production and “the greenhouse effect from methane is 23 times greater than carbon”.

With all of these facts and statistics, however, the ethical issues surrounding this action are not discussed in the article.

First of all, the demarcation problem must be addressed. The demarcation problem is establishing who or what matters morally to the author in the situation. There are several views that could be taken (anthropocentric, sentient, biocentric, holistic) and the author seems to take a sentient view with this argument. With this view, humans and sentient animals count morally.

A consequentialist’s, or utilitarian’s, view states that the rightness or wrongness of actions is based on the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of the actions. In other words, the consequentialist is concerned about the consequences of the actions they make. In regards to the change suggested in McCall’s argument, there are several consequences. One of the main consequences of people reducing the amount of meat they consume is a decrease in emissions caused by livestock because less livestock would not be required as much. In turn, this would slow down climate change. McCall states that the consumption of red-meat is strongly linked to cancer, heart disease and other diseases so a decrease in meat consumption could reduce the likelihood of being d with one of these often fatal illnesses (2009). Another consequence of consuming less meat would be a decrease in livestock population and this is not a good for these animals. High populations result in a more successful species. As well, a lack of meat in a person’s diet could result in iron deficiencies if not obtained from other sources. Iron is an essential nutrient so deficiencies can be quite harmful to a human and can lead to anaemia, fatigue, hair loss, and other health problems (Iron deficiency anemia, 2009). There are other dietary options in which a person who doesn’t eat meat, such as vegetarians, can obtain iron. These food sources include oatmeal and cereals, chickpeas, figs, bagels, beans, and many more (Sources of iron). In the end, the good consequences outweigh the bad so a consquentialist would see this as a good change.

A non-consequentialist’s, or deontolost’s, view states that the rightness or wrongness of actions depends on what is intrinsic to the action. The outcome of the situation or change is not important ethically to a non-consquentialist. In this case, a non-consequentialist would see humans and the livestock as morally important. Non-consequentialists also find rights of the intrinsic beings to be very important. In this case, they would see that the livestock have a right to live and not be slaughtered and eaten. At the same time, though, there are those who believe that humans have a right to eat whatever they want, namely meat. On top of this, future generations have a right to live in a world that was not destroyed by the current generation and climate change. As well, it is sometimes seen that non-consequentialists abide by the notion that all intrinsic beings should be treated in an equal manner. In this case, it is morally correct to reduce meat consumption.

All major changes in policy and the way we live carry ethical implications that can be assessed using many different points of view. Often, the views oppose one another. When it comes to eating less meat to reduce emissions, it seems as though there would be a consensus between consequentialists and non-consequentialists even though they view the situation with different priorities in mind. Overall, there may be a possible agreement in which both sides find it morally correct for humans to decrease meat consumption in an effort to reduce emissions.

References

2009. Iron deficiency anaemia. canada.com, [Online], <http://bodyandhealth.canada.com/condition_info_details.asp?channel_id=0&relation_id=0&disease_id=274&page_no=1>, Accessed November 2009.

McCall, R.M. 2009. Save the planet – eat less meat. The Canberra Times, [Online], <http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/save-the-planet-eat-less-meat/1562439.aspx?storypage=1>, Accessed November 2009.

Sources of iron. Capital Health, [Online], <http://www.capitalhealth.ca/NR/rdonlyres/eq3uez72ubprrsnmc354jslhl2witvfzygjaenfwveec3mdvsthukxuxbab2bflpiu6fmr6uumgni7nmeml3qfjwhth/SourcesofIron.pdf>, Accessed November 2009.

Climate Change: Address the Rich and the Poor Differently?

When it comes down to addressing climate change and reducing emissions, it is a universal issue: the consequences will affect everyone, and everyone is responsible to doing their own part. The question is, what part does one play and how does it differ? This question is clearly one with no easy answer, especially when applied to countries, the rich and the poor, the developed and the underdeveloped. Duncan Green is the author of the blog posts for Oxfam International, and touches on the issue in the blog titled “Trade v climate change: what should developing countries be asked to do?”, and supportively presents Oxfam’s point-of-view.

The problem is how climate change should be addressed differently by rich and poor countries, and to what extent. Green presents Oxfam’s informal solution, which roughly suggests that rich countries carry a heavier burden of responsibility than poor ones, as they are responsible for the majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up in the past century (Green 2009) and have the means to significantly reduce their emissions. It is also suggested that the best current solution is for developed countries to reward and fund underdeveloped countries in their efforts to reduce emissions, since they do no have the means to support an underdeveloped economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

By supporting this solution, Green indirectly addresses the demarcation problem. According to Oxfam and supported by Green, it is morally correct for developed countries to take on the greatest responsibility, as they have the wealth, and therefore, the ability to take meaningful action in reducing emissions, as well as the ability in aiding underdeveloped countries to do so as well. Protecting the environment is what is morally correct, and by taking action in dramatically reducing emissions and funding underdeveloped countries, high financial priority is morally incorrect.

Green establishes what is morally correct (protecting the environment) and morally incorrect (financial priority), which is the basis for his point-of-view. From there, one can apply the consequentialist’s and nonconsequentialist’s views to the proposed solution. In this case, the solution supports both the consequentialist and nonconsequentialist viewpoints. According to Green, highest priority lies in the issue of climate change and the consequences everyone will face if there is a late and insufficient amount of action in preventing them; this coincides with the consequentialist’s viewpoint, since it addresses the needs of the majority. The proposed solution also addresses individual needs, being those of the individuals in underdeveloped countries. Again, underdeveloped countries do no have the means to support both a weak and developing economy and the climate change cause, and it would be unfair to ask as much action from them as from the rich, developed countries; this concern for individual needs concurs with the nonconsequentialist’s viewpoint.

Though the solution proposed by Oxfam seems extreme, it does not seem to be enough, as the situation appears to be ominous no matter the solution, as outlined by the following:

‘A pathway to keep warming well within 2°C demands both that emissions in industrialised countries are reduced, well below the 1990 baseline adopted by the UN Climate Convention… Yet even if industrialised countries were to cease all emissions from today, developing-country emissions alone would overshoot the 2°C pathway by 2020 on current trends…’ (Green 2009).

However, no matter how dire the situation seems to be, actions must be taken immediately, and applying the proper ethical implications, the right solution can be drawn and the outcome beneficial to all of humankind.

References

Green, Duncan. “Trade v climate change: what should developing countries be asked to do?” From Poverty to Power. 19 June 2009. Retrieved 3 November 2009. http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?tag=ngo-policy

The Philosophy of Climate Change

Ellen Roseman summarized a speech held at the University of Toronto by John Broome, a professor of moral philosophy at Oxford University in England. The topic of the speech was on the ethics and philosophy of climate change. Broome believes that people’s existence and well being is what counts morally and looks at the solutions to climate change from a consequentialist’s point of view.

The professor talked about the potential casualties from an increase of floods, droughts, and famine due to climate change. He estimated the casualties to be about a million each year if the climate becomes significantly hotter. He even mentions the possibility, although very unlikely, that human species may become extinct due to climate change. Broome sees human life as having significant moral value, which he believes should be an important factor in deciding what must be done when dealing with climate change.

The issue of climate change was approached from a consequentialists point of view by professor Broome. He compared economists with philosophers on how they make decisions. Economists use a cost benefit analysis while philosophers similarly make decision based on which would result in more good than bad. He believes that whatever decisions we make on climate change, they need to provide more positive effects on humans than negative. Broome makes the statements that “We can't judge properly what to do about climate change until we have found an answer to the question of how these future lives can be valued.” He recognizes that people’ s existence has moral value and whether their existence will yield more good or bad should govern what decisions we make about climate change.

If you were to look at this issue from a non-consequentialist’s point of view, you could argue that it is not a factor of how much good would result, but what the costs of acting on climate change would be. If cutting green house gas emissions means reducing the use of coal, oil, and other fossil fuels, then that would lead to weakening many large industries, causing many job losses. This could also weaken many economies, since these industries may be heavily depended upon. Acting on climate change could have negative and immediate impact on people’s lives and well-being. From a non-consequentialist’s point of view you might choose not to fight climate change, even if in the future it will have positive effects, since the appropriate actions that need to be taken will cause immediate suffering.

Broome counts human life and future human existence as having moral value. He believes that whatever decision is made on climate change, it needs to yield a positive outcome for humans well beings. While if you were to look at it from a non-consequentialist’s point of view the actions needed to fight climate change would also cause suffering to humans which gives reason not to combat climate change.

Roseman, Ellen. "Author frames climate change as ethical dilemma - thestar.com." News, Toronto, GTA, Sports, Business, Entertainment, Canada, World, Breaking - thestar.com. 28 Oct. 2009. Web. 04 Nov. 2009. .

Climate Change and the Family Pet: An Ethical Examination

Many people wonder about how they many reduce their carbon footprint and help lessen the effects of climate change. A particularly controversial suggestion is reported by Kate Ravilious in her recent New Scientist article “How green is your pet?” (23 October 2009). Ravilious references a new book by the environmentalists Robert and Brenda Vance entitled Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living”. The couple’s calculations show that the carbon footprint of the family dog or cat exceeds that of many vehicles. If we wish to reduce our household’s impact on the environment, the most effective way to do so is to stop raising pets. Naturally, this argument offends many people, and to better understand why, we should explore the ethics of pets and climate change.

The initial issue is whether or not pets count morally or not. Those with an anthropocentric viewpoint argue that humans are the only beings with intrinsic value, and that ethical choices are those that benefit the most humans. On the other hand, there are many that believe animals such as pets to possess intrinsic value. Therefore, when discussing issues such as climate change, animals and humans should be given the same moral weight. It is under this viewpoint that the controversy arises: if animals and humans matter equally, then the Vance’s book may as well be titled Eat the Child. Determining one’s position on who or what matters morally – referred to as the demarcation problem – is the crucial first step for assessing ethical issues.

For simplicity’s sake, the rest of this analysis will focus on the animal rights view. Within this viewpoint two general forms of ethical reasoning exist: consequentialist and non-consequentialist. Non-consequentialists, or deontologists, take a “rights” approach to ethical issues. They hold that the most ethical choice is that which respects the rights of the most individuals. A deontologist would feel that the elimination of pets is a violation of the animals’ right to life and happiness, and is not an ethically sound option. Rather, pets and humans should be given equal consideration when discussing solutions to the problem of environmental impact. Since the eradication of either species is unacceptable, a more humane solution to the problem of reducing our environmental impact must be found.

The counterpoint to the non-consequentialist deontological view is the consequentialist, or utilitarian, view. Utilitarians believe that the ethically correct choice is that which results in the greatest aggregate happiness. Under this definition, it is apparent that utilitarians would generally support the Vance’s argument. Although the rights of pets will be violated by their elimination, a world without pets will be a world less affected by climate change, and thus a happier world overall. In this way, the end justifies the means, and so, for the good of the entire biosphere, the elimination of pets should be sought after.

The study of ethics is a difficult and often confusing endeavour, and environmental ethics especially so. The suggestions put forward by Robert and Brenda Vance and reported by Kate Ravilious remain very controversial among environmentalists, pet owners, and animal activists. The purpose of this brief analysis has been to help explain why there is such disagreement over ethical issues, and demonstrate that there are often a multitude of solutions to each philosophical and environmental problem, none more legitimate than any other. This variety of opinion can be overwhelming, but there is one crucial concept that must be remembered: for a philosophy to be valid, it must be consistent.

REFERENCES

Ravilious, Kate. "How green is your pet?" New Scientist. 23 October 2009.>www.newscientist.com/.../mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html<. Accessed 1 November 2009.

Ethical Review of NGO Policy Statement

In a recent policy statement by NGO many aspects of climate change were reviewed. The statement suggests ways of helping to curb carbon emissions and lead a more sustainable life. Among these many suggestions it was recommended to governments and industries "(halt) the development of nuclear facilities as they are neither safe nor environmentally sound [nor] sustainable]." From examining the context of the policy and the nature of the suggestions, it is clear to see what the suggested moral agents are, however, the ethical right or wrongness, depends on the nature of the two very different philosophies.

The nature of the policy statement was of salvation and sustainability of the earth's atmosphere and climate. The suggestions which were listed were categorized into such subheadings as "climate change" and "sustainable development" which shows an obvious emphasis on the environment and sustainability as each subheading offered ways countries could improve upon their current policies. The demarcation problem in this sense has a clear answer. The NGO policy is directed towards improving our future development and sustaining an atmosphere and climate which is healthy. Since the policy is acting to try and help the earth as a whole, it can be seen that the policy is treating the inhabitants of earth as moral agents worthy of help and support, which is a view shared by most humans residing on earth. However, the policy has to sides to it. The changes the policy suggests, depending on either a consequentialist's point of view or a non-consequentialist's point of view.

In the eyes of a nonconsequentialist, or a deontologist, the change suggested, to not build nuclear power plants, would be seen as morally incorrect. Since the outcome of an action does not matter to a deontologist, the negative effects towards an industry or company would outweigh any bad that may or may not occur later. Since the company is, as seen in the eyes of a deontologist, a moral agent, it carries rights and needs and has wants. Since deontologists follow the golden rule of "do unto others as you would have others do unto you", it cannot be morally correct to stop a company from profiting since a lack of profit would go directly against that companies wants and, technically, needs. The company has rights wants and needs which, being a moral agent, means that we as a society need to fulfill them when looking at the issue through the eyes of a deontologist, and therefore the changes can only be seen as bad.

The other point of view that needs to be considered is one which takes into account the long term effects of the changes suggested. This point of view is the utilitarianism philosophy, or a consequentialist view point. In the eyes of a utilitarianist, the change would be a good thing, assuming that the change would later affect the health of the planet or could help create a sustainable life style. A utillitarianist must think only of the aggregate happiness. While, in the present day, not building a nuclear power plant affects the power plant and perhaps industry, the effects of building would create a lot more unhappiness. The salvation of the planet, from a utilitarian standpoint, is a more ethically right decision than embarking on a quest for individual growth and profit.

It is clear that while the policy shares a common moral agent, the change can be viewed in two highly contrasted ways. One which states that we have a moral obligation to a company and one which states we have a moral obligation to ourselves and our future. Perhaps there is no clear cut correct moral stance and we all just need a philosophical hug.

References

NGO. October 21, 2009. "Cures: NGO policy statement for CSD 15: a new paradigm" Retrieved November 2nd, 2009 from http://www.cures-network.org/docs/csd_statement.html .