Environmental Ethics and the Problem of Inaction (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 focus in this paper is with what is seen as an "inconvenient democracy" in the field of climate change science because there is a gap between knowledge and action in actual climate change policies. The gap gives rise a couple of assertions that, in the end, converge in the diagnosis of an "inconvenient democracy". On the one hand, the opposition between advances of specialized knowledge and the commitment of individuals to change their behavior leads to the diagnosis of an "inconvenient mind". The failure of large social institutions to responds in a timely fashion to the advance of climate change knowledge amounts to the diagnosis of "inconvenient social institutions". It follows that the dual gap between knowledge and action --at the individual and collective level -implies an "inconvenient democracy". That is, climate scientists and other scholars are convinced that curtailing democratic liberties are the appropriate political frame within which climate change policies have to be enacted.
2020
The politics of climate change are complex due to numerous factors that arise from the global economy's complex interdependence on carbon dioxide emitting hydrocarbon energy sources and because carbon dioxide is directly implicated in global warming making global warming a non-traditional environmental challenge. Climate change is a straight forward science which is understood by many scientists and nonscientist alike. But climate change science, evidences, impacts, mitigation and adaptation have been unduly politicized because of the economic, developmental and strategic interests of nations (developed and developing) and multinational oil companies who benefit from the fossil fuel-driven economy. This paper highlights how United States of America, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world failed to ratify the Kyoto protocol which is a global treaty entered into since 1997 to reduce the global emissions of the four principal greenhouse gases (Co 2, NH 4, NO 2 and CFCs). Also highlighted is China which is currently the 2 nd largest economy and projected to surpass USA as the highest global emitter of greenhouse gases in the next two decades. The areas of discord that have stalled many climate change conferences and negotiations between the developed countries and developing countries such as transfer of technology, intellectual property rights, payment of reparations, green funds, mitigation versus adaption have all been carefully treated in this paper. The position of this paper is that the politics of climate change is a major distraction and it amounts to the proverbial fiddling why Rome burns. The global community should therefore jettison politics and face the reality of climate change headlong with a view to saving humanity and the environment from this "global time bomb" called climate change.
Climate Change Ethics and the Problem of End-State Solutions
The Oxford Handbook of Global Justice, 2019
How best to response to climate change is one of the most pressing challenges facing us all. There is no uncertainty about whether it is happening, only the likely negative effects beyond the short-term. The need for a compelling analysis of what to do is more than a question of justice, but a matter of human survival. The stakes could not be higher. Proposed solutions come in one of two approaches. Each takes a different route to addressing the negative effects of climate change. The first is conservationist and seeks to minimise these effects by reducing, if not eliminating, them by bringing climate change to a stop. This can take form of advocating the use of an ecological footprint or implementing a polluter pays principle. The second is focused specifically on adaptation mostly through technological advances to help us endure climate change by minimising its effects on us. Many theorists advocate some use of both approaches in tandem as climate change is happening making necessary some form of adaptation and conservationism together. Yet it is also clear that most give greater weight to either conservation or adaptation as the primary mode of securing climate change justice. The dilemma for these proposed solutions is in their aim of being a solution to the problems that climate change brings. In short, they mistake the kind of challenge that climate change presents us. This is what I call the problem of "end-state" solutions. It is where we attempt to bring to an end a circumstance that might be influenced positively or otherwise by our activities, but beyond our full control. So to claim a so-called "solution" to such an everchanging problem could make it better or worse without concluding it. If climate change is this kind of problem-and I will claim it is-then end-state "solutions" can be no more than a band aid (or sticking plaster) and the nature of our challenge is different requiring an alternative future strategy. This chapter will set out how the problem of climate change is understood through attempted solutions that do not succeed. It concludes with some ideas about why this matters and the arising implications for how we should think about climate change justice beyond the false prism of end-state solutions.
Climate Change and Institutional Competence
2010
Scientists will long debate the extent to which our climate is changing as a result of anthropogenic releases of greenhouse gases. But the debate over whether the earth is experiencing climate change-and in particular, global warming, is pretty much over. Much good work is being done to address climate change and its consequences both at the policy and technology levels. Technology promises to increase the efficiency of our cars, appliances, buildings, and power plants, and to provide new ways to generate electricity that minimize or eliminate greenhouse gases, or provide for their sequestration underground. Several potentially “game-changing” technologies are showing real promise. So why are the prospects for a near-term solution so dim? Put simply, the problem is with our political institutions. Our current political machinery is poorly constituted to address a problem that arises slowly and incrementally, and whose most serious consequences will most likely occur many years in th...