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 .

Paper and Forest Industry's "Green-Offsets" Need Clarification

Paper and other tree-oriented companies are usually seen as culprits in greenhouse gas emissions. So it comes as no surprise that these companies make it a top priority to change this image of themselves, and be considered instead as an environmentally-friendly industry. The industry’s attempts at “greening” their image is covered in the article “A Role for Trees in Climate Change Legislation?” by Anne Mulkern.

The paper and forest industries present several points in their argument. For example, one of their claims is that the products made from trees - for example, paper, lumber, and furniture - store carbon (Mulkern, 2009). Of course, such claims are made for self-beneficiary purposes, in their attempts to avoid the policy that would cap their greenhouse gas emissions, which leads to the following statement by Mulkern:

“The forest industry wants to be included on the list of what Congress considers as ‘green offsets’ the credits that companies can buy to counteract their carbon emissions…” (Mulkern, 2009).

Mulkern defines green offsets as “credits that companies can buy to counteract their carbon emissions”, but does not clarify as to what exactly those green offset credits achieve. Green offsets can be loosely defined as a way of having both economic development and environmental protection. Therefore by buying credits, the companies would be paying others to take actions in offsetting their greenhouse gas emissions, so that the net impact on the environment in terms of emissions is zero.

If the paper and forest companies did succeed in buying green offset credits, it would appear that the total carbon emissions is zero and would change the industry image to an environmentally friendly one. But green offsets have not been applied to forest industries before because lawmakers offer credits in favour of more permanent trees. Commercial forests, which are routinely cut down and replanted, in turn, cyclically capturing and releasing carbon. Permanent forests have more to offer: not only do they capture carbon, but are also important for air, water, and habitat reasons. Until there is a better understanding of how much carbon the forest industry is producing - which includes the energy used for transporting and processing - compared to how much carbon commercial forests absorb, the concept of green offsets cannot properly be applied to the industry.

It is important not to misinterpret terms such as ‘green offsets’. It can effectively give the illusion of an environmentally-friendly company. If the paper and forest industry were to receive green offset credits, it would go toward their commercial forests, which are routinely cut down and replanted; therefore, carbon emissions still remain in the atmosphere. The credits are better off given to permanent forests, which are more beneficial to the environment. Of course the paper and forest industry would rather resort to green offsets than a carbon cap - a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide released - but the environment would benefit more from the latter.

References

Mulkern, A. “A Role for Trees in Climate Change Legislation?”. Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=trees-in-climate-change-laws. 11 May 2009. Retrieved 27 October 2009.

Straightening Biological Terms

Diana Six’s article explains one of the major potential effects on the world which would result from climate change. This effect, is the delicate balance of mutualism. Throughout this article Six makes many strong, valid points regarding the importance of mutualism to various organisms and ecosystems, however, the article does not seem to contain a clear or outright explanation of the author’s meaning of the concept.

Mutualism is, as the author means it, any kind of interaction (ie. biological) between two or more organisms in nature which is resultantly beneficial for all parties. Examples of this process are noticeable everywhere in nature, even in such primary processes as a bee pollinating a flower. The bee collects pollen from a flower to make honey (beneficial for the bee,) and consequently carries pollen from one flower to the next resulting in cross pollination (beneficial for the flowers.)

This definition would make sense, as it fits with what the Six says in her article, like when she makes the statement: “In particular, mutualisms are important drivers of ecosystem structure and function.” (Jrank 2009.) Applying the above definition of mutualism to Six’s statement, the statement seems valid.

Without the proper background information on the concept of mutualism, the term could be easily misconstrued by the reader, and the article would become much more complex and difficult to read. The reader could easily misinterpret the term mutualism to mean any number of things, likely thinking that it would mean something along the lines of a single external process which effects a number of organisms equally, the article’s point could become warped and difficult to read.

Errors like this are all too easy to make as a reader, sometimes a term will seem familiar or self-explainitory, but it may mean something different than it appears. For this reason it is the obligation or the reader to always make sure all terms in the article are fully understood before reading, just as it is the responsibility of the author to make sure all terms are clearly outlined and understandable to the reader.

References:

Six, Diana. Climate Change and Mutualism. www.nature.com October, 2009. http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v7/n10/full/nrmicro2232.html

Jrank. Mutualism. www.jrank.org 2009, http://science.jrank.org/pages/4535/Mutualism.html

The Tipping Point

In the article titled “Real action on climate change is needed now in B.C. and at Copenhagen” the author, Bill Henderson, uses the term “tipping point” when speaking about climate change. Henderson uses the term in a misrepresentative manner, which can lead to confusion and leave room for ambiguity.

The author uses “tipping point” in his article when he says “what action do we have to take globally at Copenhagen so as to not go over the tipping point of a melting Arctic ice cap or methane-producing melting permafrost or a drying Amazon?” It is evident that he is confused over the definition of the tipping point. Henderson lists positive feedback loops when using the term, which are a result of rising global temperatures and may cause the effect of a tipping point but that is not the meaning of the term.

Cambridge Dictionaries online defines tipping point as the time at which a change or an effect cannot be stopped. When using this term regarding climate change it can refer to a point in time where climate change will be irreversible. It becomes irreversible due to the fact that so many positive feedback loops will have taken effect that theoretically, it would be impossible to reduce carbon emissions efficiently enough to lessen climate change. The author uses the term to describe the triggering of positive feedback loops, which are reversible. If global temperatures decline the ice will form again, the permafrost will stay frozen, and the Amazon will continue to thrive, while if we cross this tipping point global temperatures will rise continually and at a greater rate due to these positive feedback loops. Henderson had the right idea when describing the tipping point as an irreversible event however his interpretation of tipping points was as the effects of feedback loops when in reality they are the causes.

I believe that the point the author is trying to make when using the term tipping point is that strong action against climate change is imperative. If we allow global temperatures to rise then the tipping point will be triggered causing an irreversible effect. We have a small window of opportunity and once that window is shut there is no going back.

The term tipping point used by Henderson could have caused some misunderstanding although his point that action on climate change should be immediate was still clear. The author’s use of the term implied that the tipping point causes positive feedback loops when in reality the positive feedback loops are the causes of the tipping point and not the effects.

References:

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Web. 28 Oct. 2009. .

Henderson, Bill. "Real action on climate change is needed now in B.C. and at

Copenhagen | Vancouver, Canada | Straight.com." Homepage | Straight.com. 23 Oct.

2009. Web. 28 Oct. 2009.

change-needed-now-bc-and-copenhagen>.