Review of Denis G. Arnold, ed. The Ethics of Global Climate Change for Environmental Ethics (original) (raw)
Related papers
Climate Change: The Moral and Political Imperatives
In the United States, there has been lots of talk over the past several years concerning climate change, and the subject has, extraordinarily dangerously, become both a political and ideological football. While the science of climate change has been accepted by most people with some acquaintance with the subject (that is, most such people have little or no reason to harbor real doubt concerning the overwhelming scientific consensus), it has, nevertheless, been held in suspicion by many on the political right. There is no time for the arguments of deniers. The world’s peoples and governments must commence personal and institutional changes that will allow humanity to mitigate the worst damage that climate change may cause, while avoiding the dangers of environmental romanticism that will only serve to delay progress toward that end. In this monograph, I range across a number of concerns, from the need for change at the personal level, to new ways of understanding and teaching ethics, to the need for a global authority to enforce climate agreements. Key Terms: Metanoia and Climate Change; Apocalyptic Cosmopolitanism; Ethicology; Climate Change Authority; Ethicological Imperative
The Ethical Adventures of climate Change:
There seems to be many ethical dilemmas, in regards to finding a sustainable solution to climate change. It has been suggested, the crux, of most of these climate change ethical dilemmas, is how we live now within our world. As a result, this essay argues that there needs to be a global, conciseness process that tackles Climate Change, from an ethical consensual, co-evolutionary, systems orientated, sustainable development ethical perspective. So that then there is a better understanding, how we can live and cope with the crisis of climate change at present and in the future.
Riders in the Storm: Ethics in an Age of Climate Change
Global warming isn’t coming; it is already here. Human-induced global climate disruption is no longer a theoretical concern, neither is it an outcome that can be avoided if only the right policy is adopted or the right technology is invented. The oceans are rising and becoming more acidic, ice is melting, and droughts are becoming more prevalent. Determining how not only to survive, but live a good life in an age of climate change is the most pressing challenge facing humanity. The fate of the human community and many of the organisms with which we have evolved hang in the balance. In Riders in the Storm professor of philosophy and environmental studies Brian G. Henning presents a clear and accessible introduction to why global warming is happening, why it is still debated in the popular media and in congress, and what the international community is doing to try to address it. He contends that the mainstream moral frameworks of “sustainability” and “stewardship” are welcome improvements over more destructive attitudes regarding humanity’s place in nature, but that they are ultimately insufficient. Encouraging a return to the roots of ethics, which for millennia has focused on examining the nature of the good life well lived, Riders in the Storm explores the “great work” of voluntary simplicity, wide sustainability, and humble self-stewardship. Equipped with colorful graphics and images, suggestions for further research and reading, and dialogue prompts, this text is a straightforward and engaging introduction to climate change.
The 'consequentialist' and 'welfarist' approach − the assessment of a policy in terms of its consequences for individual welfare − that is embodied in standard welfare economics is highly relevant to the ethics of climate change. In Section 2.3, we described the standard approach to ethics in welfare economics i.e. the evaluation of actions in terms of their consequences for consumption by individuals of goods and services. We emphasised that 'goods and services' in consumption were multi-dimensional and should be interpreted broadly. In this appendix we examine that approach in a little more detail and compare it with different ethical perspectives of relevance to the economics of climate change. For many applications of the standard theory, the community is defined as the nation-state and the decision-maker is interpreted as the government. Indeed this is often seen as sufficiently obvious as to go unstated. This is not, of course, intended to deny the complexities and pressures of political systems: the results of this approach should be seen as an ethical benchmark rather than a descriptive model of how political decisions are actually taken. Nevertheless, questions such as 'what do individuals value', 'what should be their relation to decisions and decision-making', 'what is the decision-making process' and 'who are the decision-makers' arise immediately and strongly in the ethical analysis of climate change. These questions take us immediately to different perspectives on ethics. Economics, together with the other social sciences, has in fact embraced a much broader perspective on the objectives of policy than that of standard welfare-economic analysis. Amartya Sen 1 , for example, has focused on the capabilities and freedoms of individuals to live a life they have reason to value, rather than narrowly on the bundles of goods and services they consume. His focus is on opportunities and the processes that create them, rather than on outcomes only. Similar emphases come from discussions of equity 2 (with its focus on opportunity), empowerment 3 , or social inclusion 4. While such perspectives are indeed different, in practice many of the indicators arising from them would overlap strongly with the areas of focus in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and other indicators commonly used by international institutions. Indeed, the MDGs were the outcome of analyses and discussions which themselves embraced a range of ethical approaches. Impacts of climate change on future generations and other nations raise very firmly questions of rights. Protection from harm done by others lies at the heart of many philosophical approaches to liberty, freedom and justice. 5 Protection from harm is also expressed in many legal structures round the world in terms of legal responsibility for damage to the property or well-being of others. This is often applied whether or not the individual or firm was knowingly doing harm. A clear example is asbestos, whose use was not prohibited 6 when it was placed in buildings with the worthy purpose of protecting against the spread of fire. Nevertheless insurance companies are still today paying large sums as compensation for its consequences.
Ethics in Progress, 2014
Climate change poses one of the most serious challenges for humanity due to the increasing complexity of both factual and ethical dimensions. Although the debate over climate change is usually framed as a debate about scientific facts, climate change is also fundamentally an ethical issue; the challenges that climate change poses cannot be addressed simply by accumulating more factual knowledge since it also refers to the meaning we make out of the world and the values we identify as important. Among climate ethicists, there are no doubts that even in the face of uncertainty regarding the severity, scope, and form of climate change impacts, the moral problems it poses are real. For example, future generations are subjected to severe harms and risk, and there exists a great deal of conflict in international climate negotiations. There is general agreement that actions undertaken to deal with the problem of global climate change are not sufficient. Addressing climate issues is usually conceived in terms of political decision making, with adaptation and mitigation as the primary goals. The fact of scientific uncertainty regarding the severity and scope of the problem fuels general disagreement about the appropriate actions to undertake. As a result, the persistent tendency to polarize the discourse often undermines the moral importance of human action, especially that which relates to the global commons and future generations.