Climate change ethics
This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (April 2023) |
Climate change ethics is a field of study that explores the moral aspects of climate change. Climate change is often studied and addressed by scientists, economists, and policymakers in value neutral ways. However, philosophers such as Stephen M. Gardiner[1] and the scientific authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),[2] argue that decisions related to climate change are moral issues and involve value judgment. Climate change involves difficult moral questions relating to global inequality and human development, who bears responsibility for past emissions, as well as the role of future generations, personal responsibility and many more.
The two main ethical implications of climate change are related to its effects. The causes and effects of climate change are unrelated in time and space. Anthropogenic climate change is caused mainly by humans burning
Beginnings
Global justice
Climate change can be considered a
In addition to climate change being a global justice issue due to the disparities between the roles of developed and developing nations, the global justice issue can also be framed in terms of wealth. "Half the world’s carbon is emitted by the world’s richest 500 million people"[4] meaning that regardless of where one lives, the higher their income, the higher their emissions. Although the United States has one of the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the world,[10] there are lower-income people in the U.S. with relatively lower emissions.[11] Further, poorer people, regardless of where they live, are more likely to experience the effects of climate change because they have a reduced means to adapt compared to rich people.[4]
Intergenerational ethics
The intergenerational ethics of climate change addresses the responsibility of current generations to be environmentally conscious to and ensure the sustainable use of environmental resources can continue for future generations.[13] Moral responsibility is a crucial consideration in intergenerational climate change ethics. This responsibility extends to various interests, including humans, animals, future people, and nature. The interests of the current generation must be weighed against those of future generations, balancing current needs against future aspirations.[13]
The effects of climate change are dispersed temporally and spatially. Ethical implications due to spatial dispersion are those discussed in the previous section on global justice: those causing the problem are not in the same physical space as those experiencing the worst of its effects. Temporal ethical implications mainly relate to the fact that current greenhouse gas emissions will affect future generations more than they will affect current people.
Economics
Economists propose prioritizing adaptation over mitigation due to high costs associated with mitigation; however, conventional economic analyses have philosophical limitations. Such analyses discount future generations and prioritize human interests, failing to consider all relevant costs and benefits of climate change mitigation. Henry Shrue argues that the "No Harm Principle" gives us reason for acting on climate change, despite the uncertainty of future impacts.[1]
Temporal discounting
The concept of temporal discounting in economics is relevant to climate change ethics due to the temporal dispersion of its effects. Economists use discount rates to determine the value of future goods because it is assumed that the global economy will continue to grow and future people will have more goods than current people. The more goods you have, the less valuable any one good is, hence, it is discounted.[14] Using different discount rates, economists can arrive at very different conclusions regarding how much of the global budget should be dedicated to climate change mitigation, adaptation, or other things.[14] Prioritarianism offers one ethical justification for imploring a high discount rate is that because future people will be better off than we are today, benefiting people today is more valuable than benefiting future people.[14] Utilitarianism on the other hand, favors a lower discount rate (or none) under the idea that benefits to future people are equally valuable as benefits to current people.[14]
Human rights
Climate change is a pressing issue that threatens the basic human rights of individuals and communities around the world. Climate change violates several human rights, including the right to life, health, food, water, and shelter.[15] Climate change exacerbates existing inequalities and disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, such as low-income communities, indigenous peoples, and small island developing states. Adopting a rights-based approach to climate change that recognizes the link between climate change and human rights would provide significant improvements.
A moral threshold approach to climate change that identifies the minimum standards to protect human rights. This approach involves identifying a set of moral principles that establish the minimum standards of protection required to ensure that human rights are not violated by climate change.[15] The moral threshold approach also involves identifying the duties and responsibilities of different actors in addressing climate change, including states, corporations, and individuals.
States can take action to address climate change, as they are the primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions. States can take measures to reduce their emissions and contribute to the global effort to limit the increase in global temperatures. Additionally, corporations have a responsibility to reduce their emissions and contribute to sustainable development.[15] Individuals can play a role by adopting sustainable lifestyles and advocating for policies that address climate change. It is also an open moral question whether or not acts of civil disobedience by individuals or groups aimed at raising awareness of the climate crisis can be justified.
Climate change is a human rights issue that requires action. There is a high need for a rights-based approach to climate change and proposes a moral threshold framework for addressing this issue. By recognizing the link between climate change and human rights, people can work towards a more just and equitable future for all. It is the responsibility of all actors, including states, corporations, and individuals, to take action to address climate change and protect human rights.
References
- ^ S2CID 722697.
- ^ IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch .
- S2CID 239032360.
- ^ ISBN 9781107000698, retrieved 2023-03-08
- ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-03-08.
- OCLC 1281669822.)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link - OCLC 1112371640.)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link - ^ ISBN 978-0-19-539962-2, retrieved 2023-03-08
- PMID 31664024.
- ^ Stevens, Pippa (26 November 2019). "US leads greenhouse gas emissions on a per capita basis, report finds". CNBC. Retrieved 2023-03-10.
- ^ Schonhardt, Sara. "Rich Americans Have Higher Carbon Footprints Than Other Wealthy People". Scientific American. Retrieved 2023-03-10.
- ^ a b "Warming Across Generations". Climate Central. 22 March 2023. Archived from the original on 13 June 2024.
- Data source for global average surface temperature: "Global temperature / Global mean temperature". Met Office (Meteorological Office, UK ). 2024. Archived from the original on 17 January 2024. (scroll down to Berkeley Earth under Global Mean Temperature)
- Warming stripes concept by climatologist Ed Hawkins
- ^ JSTOR 30302196.
- ^ PMID 18642548.
- ^ . Retrieved 2023-03-27.