Lecture #19
11 March 2008
Copyright: Ronald B. Mitchell, 2008

 

I.           Introduction

II.         Ethics of environmental protection - what ethical responsibilities do we have to people of other generations?

A.        Parks and Roberts article on the inequities directly attributable to climate change and past injustice as well

B.         Brown Weiss arguing we have obligation to future generations

1.          Basic right of each generation to inherit planet in as good shape as inherited by previous generation

2.          Corresponding obligation of each generation to pass on planet in as good shape as it inherited it.

3.          Also obligation to create equal access to environmental benefits for present generations which means INTRA-generational equity

4.          This is minimum, but generations should be encouraged to, but not obligated to, improve planet.

C.         Humans as trustees of planet for future humans. Basic argument is that earth is a bank account of resources from which we should never take more than interest, and should never touch the principle

1.          Earth belongs to a community of individuals, "of whom many are dead, a few are living, and countless host are still unborn."

2.          NOT a "deep ecology" obligation to non-human elements of ecosystem

D.         Criteria for creating principles of intergenerational equity

1.          Equality among generations - neither excessive exploitation of environment by, nor unreasonable burdens on, present generation

2.          No prediction of values of future generation - leave options open and flexible

3.          Clarity of application to future situations

4.          Shared by different cultural traditions

E.          Principles of intergenerational equity

1.          Conservation of options - Conserve diversity of natural and cultural resources so future generations can use

a)          Avoiding foreclosing opportunities of future generations

b)         Must maintain diversity of resource base - notice that non-renewable resources (e.g., oil) couldn’t be used at all if have super-strict notion of conservation.

2.          Conservation of quality of environment - conserve so future generations can enjoy - especial concern about non-linearities

3.          Conservation of access - for present and future generations, create and maintain intragenerational equity - richer people, and richer countries must help provide increased access to those who are poorer and therefore have less access

III.       Climate Change

A.        How many people think we should do something to stop global warming? Why!!??@!!! How susceptible would you be to an argument that its not a problem or that, if it’s a problem, its not one in which the costs of action are exceeded by the benefits?  Are you unconvinced by the "climate skeptics" or unconvincable?

B.         Types of responses

1.          Mitigation – don’t cause it in first place

a)          Reduce sources – reduce fossil fuel use, change methane approaches, develop technologies, slow consumption

b)         Increase sinks – grow forests and other sources, pump CO2 back into wells or ocean, etc.

2.          Adaptation – respond to it when it occurs. Sea walls, change eating patterns, built communities that can respond

3.          Grieving and loss -- the world will be different and many things will be lost in the process.  Addressing that loss will be necessary as well.

IV.       Political aspects of the problem: Stakeholders and their interests

A.        Environmental NGOs: pushing to address the problem as quickly and fully as possible, but differ about tactics for achieving that.

B.         Business interests: more mixed than one might think. Initially, most were resistant, especially coal and oil companies. Many still are. But now more of a mixed bag. Pew Climate Change center has organized corporations that support action – based on personal aspects of people and business views. BP-Amoco already doing internal trading. Several motivations

1.          Good economics to look green.

2.          First mover advantages

3.          Climate change as catalyst for long-term thinking (move to better equilibrium)

4.          True concern

C.         Country groups by position of government (different from industry or polity more generally)

1.          Europeans – generally support action now without requiring developing country contribution, at least in short term. But also want flexibility for selves about how they achieve it.

2.          US – supportive only if developing countries included and if sinks allowed for

3.          AOSIS – developing states pushing for action because their interests directly and clearly affected. Organized with significant assistance from FIELD, a British legal NGO

4.          OPEC – dislike any action with respect to fossil fuels which cut their revenues

5.          Developing countries – want to avert problem but feel that they haven’t caused problem and that they don’t have technologies to avoid doing the same and that developed world should pay

6.          Separate the decisions of who plays and who pays, according to Schneider.

7.          Important debate between lack of concern, concerns about effectiveness, and concerns about equity

V.         What should we do about it?

A.        Treaty or not? What are causal assumptions here? Assumptions about what works and what doesn't, about what is possible and what is not possible. Why not NGO action? Why not a personal crusade? Why not sitting in a tree like Julia Butterfly Hill?

B.         What activity should we cut first? Assumptions about which is the real and main source of the problem.

C.         How aggressive should we be?  Big steps early with a committed few or small steps with all?

D.         Equal or differentiated obligations? Should people in E. Europe or developing countries do the same thing, given the much more immediate environmental problems they face? Do they seem likely to?

E.          What will you do to stop it? How many of you are planning on putting insulation in your apartment, turning down the heat, putting a lid on your saucepan when cooking, going without lights, or even calling your landlord and having them put in insulation? Notice that if not willing to do something about it, it is largely based on the tragedy of the commons type dynamic even at the personal level.

F.          Alternatives. Why not start a political action committee for a $1.00 per gallon tax on gasoline in the US (or better yet, $50/ton of carbon to cover all fossil fuels)? That could create the political momentum necessary for the tax to be created and solve a whole bunch of problems.

VI.       How much money should we spend on it?

1.          Where should action to stop global warming sit in the pile of environmental and other social problems we decide to do something about?

2.          Where will that money come from? What programs should be cut? Who should pay for it?

3.          Note how we might want to achieve same policy by different means - avert global warming for $XX trillion or respond to it by building seawalls for $X trillion.

4.          Why not spend this same amount of money on finding ways to reduce racism, or to eliminate the hunger problem, or to educate populations in third world countries?

VII.     Conclusion