This is a guest post by James Garvey from the Royal Institute of Philosophy This is an introduction to his new book The Ethics of Climate Change.
…
Thinking about the moral dimension of climate change matters a lot. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has this to say about the role of science in our thinking about what to do about our warming world:
‘Natural, technical, and social sciences can provide essential information and evidence needed for decisions on what constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate systemâ€. At the same time, such decisions are value judgments determined through socio-political processes, taking into account considerations such as development, equity, and sustainability, as well as uncertainties and risk.’ (IPCC (2001) TAR, http://www.ipcc.ch.)
Science can give us a grip on the facts, but we need more than that if we want to act on the basis of those facts. The something more which is needed involves values. Climatologists can tell us what is happening to the planet and why it is happening, they can even say with some confidence what will happen in the years to come. What we do about all of this, though, depends on what we think is right, what we value, what matters to us. You cannot find that sort of stuff in an ice core. You have to think your way through it.
The Ethics of Climate Change is a start on those sorts of thoughts. It is neither exhaustive nor comprehensive, not the last word but a few first words. It is an introduction, in plain language, to the ethics of climate change, to where the moral weight falls on our changing planet and how that weight ought to translate into action. It has something to do with the conviction that our societies and our lives have to change, and the role of value in the changes ahead.
In the end, I suppose, I’ve left a lot of the reflection to you. Applied philosophy, as it is sometimes called, concerns itself with practical moral problems. Such things as abortion, euthanasia, genetic modification, health care, cloning, and on and on raise philosophical questions which might be of interest to just about anyone. However, you can, all the while, be a little thankful that the problems are way over there, off at a safe distance. No one is about to clone you. With luck, you’ll never be faced with problems having to do with abortion or euthanasia or the rest. However, you are lumped with the problem of climate change. It’s a moral problem for you, right now. You have some decisions to make about how to live, some choices which concern your everyday life. There is some moral pressure on every one of us to come to some conclusions. The Ethics of Climate Change recognizes that pressure and makes a start on dealing with the moral demands associated with the fact of climate change.
…
I will be reviewing his book later, but his intro raises a very interesting question. There are many very real ethical and philosophical questions that are raised by climate change. Do we try and keep developing nations from developing because they will destroy the planet? Even though we did the same before? Do we have a moral obligation to reduce green house emissions? What about stewardship of the earth for future generation? What do you think. I would like to use this thread as a discussion. What ethical and philosophical questions do you see being raised by global warming and climate change?
I think how many children one woman brings into the world is an ethical and philosophical question. Imposing restrictions as China somewhat has, to one, or in some cases two children is a good idea. But then again, people, particularly in the United States don’t like the government telling them how to run their lives, or in this case, how many children they can have. Unfortunately the less educated a woman is, the more children she has. Each new human life puts more pressure on this planet.
Just like in the original post, developing countries can’t say, “oh we can have 2 children, but you underdeveloped countries can only have 1.” Of course for one thing it doesn’t work like that. Human hormones are such that babies are just going to be born. What we do need is everyone in the world educated and access to birth control methods. Perhaps someday a woman with a string of children will be looked upon like the smoker standing outside his place of employment. But it’s really not her fault. She is just not educated or encouraged NOT to have so many kids, or she doesn’t have access to birth control. Why aren’t our leaders telling us to recycle, why aren’t they encouraging us to have fewer children? Why aren’t they telling us to consume less?
There are so many problems that do have answers. The garbage problem, recycle properly, use less to begin with.
The pet problem, spay and neuter. This needs to be enforced, or with incentives,because voluntarily this is not working.
Human overpopulation, get the pill to everyone on the planet. If we can travel to the moon, this should be “doable.”
Another question that comes to my mind, since I like to garden, is use of herbicides and pesticides. Organic and sustainable are great approaches. But as more and more people love to garden, so often we play God in what plants we allow in our yards, and what plants we destroy. Many of those plants and seeds we destroy are ones that native animals and birds have relied on for thousands of years.