Climate Change Policy & the Ethics of Uncertainty

[Ruv Draba]

Here's something I thought I'd never do -- initiate a post to this forum...

I've been a scientist but not a climate change scientist. In watching the climate change debates unfold I'm witnessing governments, ideologues and sectional interests grapple with trying to decide what is good policy and what is an ethical position in the face of various kinds of uncertainty. As you probably know, not much has come of that.

Here's my take: Climate models are fairly new and still being refined. We have no proven framework for climate engineering and we barely have enough global governance to even try to create and sustain such a framework. Nevertheless, climate scientists are telling us that the need for action is urgent, and that delay is the same as choosing to live with a permanently-changed climate.

So, what to do, what to do?

It seems to me that whatever responses governments come up with, ordinary people need to understand the reasoning and have a framework in which to evaluate it. I think that the framework needs to be geoscientific, economic, sociological and ethical -- recognising that most people aren't geoscientists, economists or sociologists -- they just have care about what happens, and a conscience.

This thread is meant to offer a place to talk about the ethics -- not the science, economics or sociology (though it may touch on those things) -- the ethics: what do we owe one another on this matter, who is responsible, and when should we pay?

To kick things off I found a 40-page white-paper (http://rockethics.psu.edu/climate/whitepaper/edcc-whitepaper.pdf) from the Rock Ethics Institute (http://rockethics.psu.edu/) at Penn. State U. on just this topic. Some key quotations below. The rest -- questions, opinions and supporting research -- is up to you.


This paper describes the relevant facts, ethical questions, and preliminary ethical analyses that will constitute the initial phase of the Collaborative Program on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate (EDCC). his paper does not seek to deal with these matters exhaustively but rather intends to create a focus for initial inquiry and draw preliminary conclusions about the ethical dimensions of several climate change issues that are possible at this early stage of the work of the EDCC.

By the use of the word “ethics” in this paper is meant the field of philosophical inquiry that examines concepts and their employment about what is right and wrong, obligatory and non-obligatory, and when responsibility should attach to human actions that cause harm. For this reason, an ethical examination of climate change issues will explore prescriptive assertions about what should be done about climate change rather than focus on descriptions of scientific and economic facts alone, although good ethical analyses of climate change issues must be sensitive to facts that frame any issue. For this reason, this paper identifies the scientific, economic, and social facts associated with each issue about which it draws ethical conclusions.

In December 2004, the Collaborative Program on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change adopted the Buenos Aires Declaration on the Human Dimensions of Climate Change at the 10th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (For the comp lete text of this declaration, see: http://rockethics.psu.edu/climate/declaration.pdf.) [...]


The Buenos Aires Declaration identified a number of specific ethical issues and associated questions concerning climate change [(namely:)]
Responsibility for Damages: Who is ethically responsible for the consequences of climate change, that is, who is liable for the burdens of preparing for and then responding to climate change (i.e., adaptation) or paying for unavoided damages?
Atmospheric Targets: What ethical principles should guide the choice of specific climate change policy objectives
Allocating GHG Emissions Reductions: What ethical principles should be followed in allocating responsibility among people, organizations, and governments at all levels to prevent eth ically intolerable impacts from climate change?
Scientific Uncertainty: What is the ethical significance of the need to make climate change decisions in the face of scientific uncertainty?
Cost to National Economies: Is the commonly used justification of national cost for delaying or minimizing climate change action eth ically justified?
Independent Responsibility to Act: Is the commonly used reason for delaying or minimizing climate change action that any nation need not act until others agree on action, ethically justifiable?
Potential New Technologies: Is the argument that we should minimize climate change action until new, less-costly technologies may be invented in the future, ethically justifiable?
Procedural Fairness: What principles of procedural justice should be followed to assure fair representation in decision making?

I find all of those questions interesting, but for this discussion, my interest is especially on Question 4. Here's a summary from the paper. In essence, the paper puts forward the view that the risks and consequences have been too well-known for too long for denial and faffing around to have been an ethically tolerable position for the last 20 years.



Decision making in the face of scientific uncertainty about climate change raises important ethical questions. [...] Even if science could accurately describe levels of risk, ethical questions about the acceptability of this risk arise. [...] One cannot deduce whether that threat is acceptable without first deciding on certain criteria for acceptability. The criteria of acceptability must be understood as an ethical rather than a scientific question.
Decision makers cannot avoid ethical questions when faced with uncertain impacts of human activities including who should bear the burden of proof about harm. science alone [...] cannot determine the quantity of proof that should trigger preventative actions. [...]
All ethical systems concur that those who engage in risky behavior are not exonerated simply because there was uncertainty involved [...] For instance, for a defendant to be convicted of reckless driving or reckless endangerment, a prosecutor simply has to prove that the defendant acted in a way that he or she should have known to be risky.
[...] Scientists have understood the potential of human activities to change the climate for at least thirty years and have known that these changes could harm humans, plants, animals, and ecosystems. In addition, for the last twenty years, the threat of human induced climate change to human healtha nd the environment has been widely discussed in the scientific literature. For more than a decade, the IPCC, after evaluating the peer-reviewed science on climate change, has been telling the world that great harm from global warming is likely. For this reason, climate change causing actions constitute risky behavior that is ethically unsupportable.

Nations cannot deny that their release of GHGs creates a risk to human health and the environment around the world, even if one disagrees with the specific predictions. Therefore, nations emitting significant amounts of GHGs have been engaged in risky behavior and this risky behavior has ethical significance even if there is uncertainty about actual consequences.

Because by the end of the 1980s there was widespread understanding in the scientific community of the threat posed [...], there was [...] a clear ethical duty to act [...]

All major ethical systems would strongly condemn behavior that poses serious risks to the things that humans hold to be of most value [...]. Despite scientific uncertainty about the timing and magnitude of climate change threats, there is general scientific consensus that human caused changes to the climate system are occurring and that they put peoples and environments at serious risk. Because of the high levels of potential harm to peoples and environments, [...] using scientific uncertainty as an excuse [...] is ethically intolerable.

For the above reasons, there is ethical consensus that the argument that a nation need not reduce its GHG emissions because of scientific uncertainty about consequences of timing and magnitude does not withstand minimum ethical scrutiny.

Because nations have consented to be bound by the precautionary principle in relation to climate change science, the failure to apply the precautionary principle in developing climate change policies also violates the ethical normthata nation should keep its promises.

Nations have a duty to consider all plausible adverse climate change impacts in setting policy including low probability high consequence impacts. In determining whether [these] impacts are acceptable, nations need to provide opportunity for those most vulnerable to climate change to participate in this decision

As remaining scientific uncertainties about climate change are largely about timing and magnitude of climate change impacts [...], these scientific uncertainties cannot be ethically justified to limit obligations to reduce GHG emissions that are already harming some people and places and creating additional threats for millions of people around the world



According to the paper, there are three ethical questions to work out:
Who is to blame for the last 20 years of inaction and ineffective action?
To what extend should 'wilful ignorance' be tolerated as an excuse for avoiding responsibility?
To what extent is an incremental approach to dealing with climate change (as opposed to a big-bang, hard-as-you-can) approach ethically justified?
Hope this is interesting and productive.

[clintl]

I think Thomas Friedman pretty much got it right in this column. Even if it turns out that anthropomorphic climate change is not real, there are significant long-term benefits for acting to mitigate it. If it is real, and we continue to waste time dealing with it, it's going to cause major problems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=1

Plus, almost everything we need to do to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we should be doing for a lot of other reasons, too.

[dmytryp]

That would be "antropogenic"
The last sentence i generally agree. We should move away from fossil fuels as much as technology allows it. We should conserve energy and resources. We should care about the environment. None of this means, however, the drastic policies proposed.

[SPMiller]

That would be "antropogenic"
The last sentence i generally agree. We should move away from fossil fuels as much as technology allows it. We should conserve energy and resources. We should care about the environment. None of this means, however, the drastic policies proposed.Anthropogenic, actually ;)

But wouldn't it be cool if it were anthropomorphic? We could have a nice direct chat with climate change and not have to worry about all this science stuff.

[dmytryp]

You caught me.
How about a more accurate "Global warming due to anthropogenic GHG"? :)
This is after all what we are mostly talking about, no?

[SPMiller]

I don't mind global warming as terminology as long as people understand it doesn't mean uniform warming everywhere but rather increased variation in local climates with a general upward global trend in temperature over time. Unfortunately, as soon as you use the word "warming", laymen everywhere start to bitch constantly if there are any statistical outliers, e.g., a particularly cold day or month or season. Hence, climate change.

But this is all grossly off topic, I think.

[Don]

That would be "antropogenic"
The last sentence i generally agree. We should move away from fossil fuels as much as technology allows it. We should conserve energy and resources. We should care about the environment. None of this means, however, the drastic policies proposed.
This.

And those changes should be made using education, not coercion.

That said, I have no problem with legal action against polluters. AFAIC, pollution is a form of agression and should rightly be dealt with by the justice system.

[dmytryp]

But this is all grossly off topic, I think.
We might as well :)
Actually I am kidding. But the OP contains too many assumptions incorporated as axioms that I don't necessarily agree are such, so it is a problem for me to respond in any kind of meaningful way.

[Don]

We might as well :)
Actually I am kidding. But the OP contains too many assumptions incorporated as axioms that I don't necessarily agree are such, so it is a problem for me to respond in any kind of meaningful way.
Thanks, dm. I was looking for a nice way to express this, and you did a good job. :)

[MattW]

Who is to blame for the last 20 years of inaction and ineffective action?
To what extend should 'wilful ignorance' be tolerated as an excuse for avoiding responsibility?
To what extent is an incremental approach to dealing with climate change (as opposed to a big-bang, hard-as-you-can) approach ethically justified?
[/LIST]Hope this is interesting and productive.

For the first question, should it be about blame, or understanding causation first? I'd hate to see arbitrary laws and penalties based on what little we know.

For the last question, how big do you go? Nationalize all industries? Invade non-compliant countries?

[lvcabbie]

IMHO this global warming/climate change stuff is a hoax!
It's a push to give governments and massive companies such as GE power over individual freedoms.

What's so wrong with CO2??? Nature needs it for plants so they can produce oxygen!!!

Remember the garbage about cfcs causing holes in the ozone? We tried to do away with them and holes still pop up there - NATURALLY.

What about snow in Mexico City today? Or the upper midwest not having a summer this year? [I could cite examples for pages but the Greenie Nuts will only ignore them and claim they're aberations]

I'm amazed at the termity of those who espouse the belief that puny MAN can make a change in the overall natural system of the planet. How can they be so stupidly egotistical? It also seems to me that they're the same ones who want to create a world government based upon socialist precepts.

{ah well, here come the flames - :Soapbox:]

[dclary]

The UN is trying to push a theory that it is an anomaly that America is experiencing one of its coldest years in record, by saying the rest of the world is too hot. Not that many Londoners buried in the snow right now believe that.

[SPMiller]

IMHO this global warming/climate change stuff is a hoax!
It's a push to give governments and massive companies such as GE power over individual freedoms.

What's so wrong with CO2??? Nature needs it for plants so they can produce oxygen!!!

Remember the garbage about cfcs causing holes in the ozone? We tried to do away with them and holes still pop up there - NATURALLY.

What about snow in Mexico City today? Or the upper midwest not having a summer this year?

I'm amazed at the termity of those who espouse the belief that puny MAN can make a change in the overall natural system of the planet. How can they be so stupidly egotistical? It also seems to me that they're the same ones who want to create a world government based upon socialist precepts.

{ah well, here come the flames - :Soapbox:]

The UN is trying to push a theory that it is an anomaly that America is experiencing one of its coldest years in record, by saying the rest of the world is too hot. Not that many Londoners buried in the snow right now believe that.
I don't mind global warming as terminology as long as people understand it doesn't mean uniform warming everywhere but rather increased variation in local climates with a general upward global trend in temperature over time. Unfortunately, as soon as you use the word "warming", laymen everywhere start to bitch constantly if there are any statistical outliers, [I]e.g., a particularly cold day or month or season. Hence, climate change.

But this is all grossly off topic, I think. Huh. Maybe it wasn't so off topic, after all. I must be a precognitive or some shit.

[Bird of Prey]

You know what? We deserve what we get: greed vs. the obvious, that we're placing ourselves on the brink for the most foolish of reasons.

If you don't believe in climate change, fine. But if you can find it within yourself to acknowledge that air and water pollution are not "good," then maybe you should be on on the climate change board, as y'all represent the same stripes on the tiger.

And Ruv, once again, you've proved your merit, simply by presenting the questions. . . .

[dmytryp]

And BoP keeps erecting men of straw just to be able to knock them down and seem superior.

[Bird of Prey]

And BoP keeps erecting men of straw just to be able to knock them down and seem superior.
If that's the best you can do, Dm, you've cast yourself with a sorry lot indeed. Regardless, may the holiday season be good to you. . . .

[Don]

You know what? We deserve what we get: greed vs. the obvious, that we're placing ourselves on the brink for the most foolish of reasons.

If you don't believe in climate change, fine. But if you can find it within yourself to acknowledge that air and water pollution are not "good," then maybe you should be on on the climate change board, as y'all represent the same stripes on the tiger.

And Ruv, once again, you've proved your merit, simply by presenting the questions. . . .
How you can possibly contend that acknowledging air and water pollution are not good is the equivalent of believing that everyone should be taxed for their carbon output, CO2 should be regulated as a poison gas, and we should ship billions of our taxpayer dollars to other countries?

[dmytryp]

If that's the best you can do, Dm, you've cast yourself with a sorry lot indeed. Regardless, may the holiday season be good to you. . . .
What Don said
How you can possibly contend that acknowledging air and water pollution are not good is the equivalent of believing that everyone should be taxed for their carbon output, CO2 should be regulated as a poison gas, and we should ship billions of our taxpayer dollars to other countries?


BoP, I told you many times, you know very little about that subject. You don't do nuance. Everything is a nail for you because all you have is a hammer. But happy holidays to you, too (you might want to remeber that you're a couple of weeks late to wish this to me, though :) )

EDIT: I also give SP permission to publicize the rep I gave him which goes to your "you've cast yourself with a sorry lot". I also can bring you many many examples of my posts critical of accusations of conspiracies, fraud and singular years as proof of anything. Can you do the same for the alarmist statements from your side? Oh, that's right, you are one of those making those claims.

[SPMiller]

EDIT: I also give SP permission to publicize the rep I gave him which goes to your "you've cast yourself with a sorry lot". I also can bring you many many examples of my posts critical of accusations of conspiracies, fraud and singular years as proof of anything. Can you do the same for the alarmist statements from your side? Oh, that's right, you are one of those making those claims.I will interpret that permission as a request.

Well, the other side does it, too, when it suits their purposes :) Not constructive, though, I agree.And as it happens, I, too, agree. AGW proponents do sometimes lean on outliers when they shouldn't. In the end, all that matters is the trend.

[Bird of Prey]

How you can possibly contend that acknowledging air and water pollution are not good is the equivalent of believing that everyone should be taxed for their carbon output, CO2 should be regulated as a poison gas, and we should ship billions of our taxpayer dollars to other countries?


First of all, I want you to finally acknowledge - FINALLY - that concern about the environment - politically, since YOU brought it up - is related to climate change. Now just admit that and I'll debate the details ad nauseum. You can rail against all the powers that be, as long as you acknowledge that climate change and pollution are a shared concern by the SAME CONCERN. . . .

[Bird of Prey]

What Don said



BoP, I told you many times, you know very little about that subject. . . .

I've been told that a lot in my life, Dm, by people a lot smarter than you and by those who have a plenty to gain just like you, and you know what?? All that condescension and bullshit never works. Sorry, Dm . . . .

[SPMiller]

I don't know. For all I tend to disagree with him on many issues, dmytry seems pretty sharp.

[Bird of Prey]

I don't know. For all I tend to disagree with him on many issues, dmytry seems pretty sharp.

Anybody can find any link to support his/her agenda. And I mean anybody. And what he does repeatedly is toss out any alternative point of view by claiming it illiget. . .

I have no problem with factual or theoretical dispute but that's not what I see here. I see an agenda that is not open-mindedly supported by somebody that should be intellectually so inclined, but rather a person reliant on proof from others with the same agenda. . . .

Climate change is really complicated. I have a lot of ties to the research done in Antarctica, and what has become painfully apparent is that the research can be tweeked to support any imbecile's notion of what's happening. Ultimately, there's only one simple answer: be good stewards of the planet. Do everything possible to limit pollution and unnatural emissions, keep that which has been gifted as habitat intact. . . That's it, that's all. The rest of it is partisan interests and greed talking. . . .

[Don]

First of all, I want you to finally acknowledge - FINALLY - that concern about the environment - politically, since YOU brought it up - is related to climate change. Now just admit that and I'll debate the details ad nauseum. You can rail against all the powers that be, as long as you acknowledge that climate change and pollution are a shared concern by the SAME CONCERN. . . .
Concern about the environment is the emotion being played on by those behind the AGW agenda. Like the head honcho of the IPPC, a railroad engineer, not a climate scientist, who's heavily invested in alternative energy and carbon futures trading systems, of all the surprising things.

So yes, I agree. concern about the environment is politically related to climate change. It's just that not everybody accepts appeals to authority.

Some people who care about the environment have heard declarations made that align with their philosophies, and thereafter accepted those declarations uncritically without examining the facts that support, or fail to support the declarations.

Other people who also care about the environment look at an organization run by a railroad engineer that gives out grants to pay for reports that recommend actions that will greatly benefit his investments and smell a rat. Then they hear about researchers getting those grants who falsify and destroy data and attempt to subvert the peer-review process, and smell a whole pack of rats.

So if that's what you consider related to climate change, then I'm down with that.

[Prozyan]

The Copenhagen Summit (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c1a7aade-ee98-11de-944c-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1) is a failure.

In light of this, I'm sure we'll see some new doom and gloom scenarios soon.

Of course, maybe I'm just cynical.

[benbradley]

... Now just admit that and I'll debate the details ad nauseum.
What's your position on catalytic converters in cars? These have been required in cars in the US since the 1970's yet they INCREASE the CO2 output of cars.

[dmytryp]

I've been told that a lot in my life, Dm, by people a lot smarter than you and by those who have a plenty to gain just like you, and you know what?? All that condescension and bullshit never works. Sorry, Dm . . . .
Do tell me waht I stand to gain. Do tell.

[dmytryp]

So, c'mon BoP. You claim you know stuff, I am open for that possibility. How about we start with your claim about the Arctic and Antarctic, ok? C'mon, show us what you got. Show us the vast expanse of your knowledge on the subject.

[Cranky]

A couple of deep breaths might be in order here, despite whatever collateral damage to the environment in terms of increased CO2, folks. Please and thank ya.

[benbradley]

To answer the OP, and there's already been some good comments:
Here's something I thought I'd never do -- initiate a post to this forum...
...
This thread is meant to offer a place to talk about the ethics -- not the science, economics or sociology (though it may touch on those things) -- the ethics: what do we owe one another on this matter, who is responsible, and when should we pay?
All these things are tied together - the econonics, would be a lot easier and perhaps the ethics would also be easier if the scientific knowledge of the problem were narrowed down with greater certainty: how ethical is it to take steps when you can't give a good estimate of the results of taking these steps?

Don discussed pollution being illegal (and of course, excessive CO2 emission is now being declared pollution by the EPA and surely others) which works fairly well within a country, but (for one big example) US laws won't stop China from building coal-fueled power plants at the rate of one per week (NPR story about a year and a half ago).

So what are the ways (pragmatic and "ethical") to influence other countries to restrict their output of CO2 as much as "we" think they should? There's boycotting and sanctions. This wouldn't make a lot of Americans happy if this were done against China, as so many goods, especially at bottom-feeder retail outlets such as Wal-Mart, come from China, and Americans will have to pay more for products from other sources. With the amount of US Government debt that China is paying for, antagonizing China in this way may not be a good idea.

The next step is invasion. That can get expensive and a lot of people (inside as well as outside the invading country) would have problems with that. The ethics of this of course goes much deeper than the cost-benefit analysis of how much CO2 the invasion will generate vs. how much CO2 is saved by destroying major CO2-generating sites (and if the invader is nice, putting up non-emitting replacements such as electricity-generating windmills). Would it be ethical NOT to invade if the offending country's emissions demonstrably cause a 50-foot sea level rise?

So what else could a "pro-CO2-reducing" country do to influence the policies of another?

[Bird of Prey]

What's your position on catalytic converters in cars? These have been required in cars in the US since the 1970's yet they INCREASE the CO2 output of cars.


So you would prefer carbon monoxide?? We're operating in stages. We didn't know everything at the time converters were introduced. Is that your point in asking?? If not, please tell me what the point is. . . .

[dmytryp]

So, BoP, how about you indulge us and disclose what you think I stand to gain here (you did accuse me of this) and what my agenda on this issue is (you did accuse me of this, too. Several times). How about it, eh?

[Don]

To answer the OP, and there's already been some good comments:

All these things are tied together - the econonics, would be a lot easier and perhaps the ethics would also be easier if the scientific knowledge of the problem were narrowed down with greater certainty: how ethical is it to take steps when you can't give a good estimate of the results of taking these steps?

Don discussed pollution being illegal (and of course, excessive CO2 emission is now being declared pollution by the EPA and surely others) which works fairly well within a country, but (for one big example) US laws won't stop China from building coal-fueled power plants at the rate of one per week (NPR story about a year and a half ago).

So what are the ways (pragmatic and "ethical") to influence other countries to restrict their output of CO2 as much as "we" think they should? There's boycotting and sanctions. This wouldn't make a lot of Americans happy if this were done against China, as so many goods, especially at bottom-feeder retail outlets such as Wal-Mart, come from China, and Americans will have to pay more for products from other sources. With the amount of US Government debt that China is paying for, antagonizing China in this way may not be a good idea.

The next step is invasion. That can get expensive and a lot of people (inside as well as outside the invading country) would have problems with that. The ethics of this of course goes much deeper than the cost-benefit analysis of how much CO2 the invasion will generate vs. how much CO2 is saved by destroying major CO2-generating sites (and if the invader is nice, putting up non-emitting replacements such as electricity-generating windmills). Would it be ethical NOT to invade if the offending country's emissions demonstrably cause a 50-foot sea level rise?

So what else could a "pro-CO2-reducing" country do to influence the policies of another?
I'm a firm advocate of 1) not doing the pot-kettle thing and 2) leading by example. I also appreciate the whole "get rid of the mote in thine own eye first" concept.

Perhaps some holier-than-thou would be permissible, but only once we have something to be holy about. Then we can send out ecological missionaries to show the rest of the world how to do it. And yes, I used missionaries intentionally, to evoke the image of peaceful, cooperative people sharing information.

How's that?

[Ruv Draba]

I meant to post here sooner, but was caught up in another thread trying to defend a profession from what I see as unfair calumnies. :)

How I like to do ethics is to disclose self-interest first, then think about the practicalities of the situation, the interests of others, a bit of how we got here, then think about what a good option would look like if I had one, then explore options, then pick one I like best, and think about any residual problems that might arise.

So that's what I'd like to do here.

Self-interest:

I like being comfortably well off. I like having my late-model turbo-charged, fuel-injected sporty hatchback, and my fridge, and air-conditioning and my high-end games computer. I also like having showers, and fresh food, and a three-hour drive to the coast, and scuba-diving and seeing pretty fish. It seems to me that either climate change is going to mess with these things, or climate change response is going to mess with these things, so whichever way it goes I can't win -- unless it's all a cruel hoax. Boo hoo me! :cry:

Practicalities:

The scientists tell us that if whatever climate-change we don't prevent will quickly become irreversible. That's an unexpected thing to hear because we're used to rain following droughts and regrowth following fires and seals breeding if we don't hunt them. It's hard to swallow, but swallow it I have, because the earth itself has changed over aeons. It hasn't entered into a contract with us to be nice if we're nice -- ask the folk in Pompeii. We have to understand it, and what impacts we have if we want to survive here.

The scientists tell us that we're largely responsible for the changes that are coming -- this time. That wasn't always true - there have been huuuge changes that have had nothing to do with us, but these ones are imminent and our fault. I have no trouble believing that because I see all the changes we create every day.

The scientists tell us that we have a good chance of being able to undo the changes if we're prudent and prompt and practical. I believe that too, because humans are ingenious! On the other hand, I worry that we're not very prudent or prompt when it comes to tightening our belts. We'd much rather panic-buy, gorge ourselves and starve than be sensible.

Other peoples' interests:

It's a mixed bag, isn't it? Many people want to keep the things they have, same as I do. Many people want the things I have, and they don't have them yet. They're just starting to see that they could have them with time and effort. Some people think nobody should have the things I have, but I don't care about them. Some people want more than they have -- even though they have as much as me or more. I don't care about them either.

Everyone wants to survive. Most people would love that the place they live in is as good as they first found it.

The scientists tell us that if we don't avert it, climate change is going to mess with everyone, and ruin some people completely. Not just the people who live on islands, or low-lands, but farmers and all the people who trade with them, and water-supplies. They paint pictures of dust-bowls where there were once fields, and water where there was once land, and places where we can't live because it's too hot, and people fighting over food and the places that remain.

That's appalling.

I would happily give up my car and my computer and my air-conditioning if I never had to see that happen.

How we got here:

We are really good at exploiting our opportunities. If we find a tree, we turn it into warmth and homes. If we find an animal, we'll turn it into food and clothes, or something to dig or carry for us. If we find iron, we turn it into steel. If we find a river, we make it carry us to new lands, and carry away our waste. Such behaviour often trades away a bit of the future for immediate gain. I don't think that's so bad though, as long as there's enough future left over to sustain itself.

It's when the future shrinks I get worried. Especially if it shrinks because of something we've done. Because we are really bad at growing the future back again. We can replace buildings and breed more people, but we can't bring back lost rain or replace lost land, or lost plants or animals, or bad air.

In the last few hundred years we've learned to think about keeping the future of water and land from shrinking. But we've only been thinking hard about keeping the future of good air and fair climate in the last thirty or so. We have a history that whatever we don't think about, we muck up. So I think it's fair to say that we've probably been mucking up air and climate for ages by not thinking about it.

What I think a good option would look like

A good option would be easy to understand. It would recognise that climate and atmosphere don't stop at the edges of countries. It would let everyone play a part, but recognise that some people could and should do more than others. It would be visible, so everyone could see what everyone else was doing. It would let us do more if more was needed, or less if less was required. It would let us see how we were going -- not just in terms of what we were doing, but in terms of where it was getting us.

People are selfish and greedy and petty and lazy. A good option would have to be policed and enforced or it would be no option at all. But it would encourage people to do more than they need to -- at least until we knew we were safely out of danger.

I think a good option should also be fair. If my life produces more carbon than someone else's then that's my responsibility and nobody else's.

What are the options?

Do nothing: Doing nothing is the same as hoping that thousands of our cleverest and most dedicated scientists are wrong. Individual scientists have a history of being wrong sometimes, but thousands of scientists arguing with each other is the cleverest and most successful kind of thinking we've ever produced. Betting against thousands of scientists all at once when they're sure of themselves is about the worst bet we could make.

Wait and see: This is usually a good option, because the longer we wait the more we learn. But our thousands of clever scientists tell us that what we're doing now is deciding our next thousand years or so. So wait and see is the same as betting that they're wrong. That's a bad bet.

Whoever wants can pitch in: This option would avoid all the arguments, but who's going to want to pitch in? A few people may try hard. Lots of people will make a token effort. Some people may actually do less if they see others doing more. I don't like this option because people who pitch in aren't rewarded and people who shirk or behave badly aren't punished.

Make everyone pitch in: This is the option I like best. Someone needs to set a schedule and targets at the world-level and people need to break the targets down into who-does-what-when. And people who don't pitch in should be punished, and people who do should be rewarded.

The only problem is, who decides how much everyone should do? Or what the punishments should be? Or what the rewards should be?

We don't have a global government. Nobody trusts anyone enough to create one. And a global government would just spend its time having wars with people who didn't want a global government.

It seems to me that when we want to make other countries do the right thing, we can only do it through trade or war.

Is there a trade-way to recognise the carbon-cost of each person in a country? Is there a trade-way to acknowledge when that cost is coming down, or punish a country when that cost goes up? Could the trade-way recognise that the carbon-cost of someone in Somalia is hardly anything, while someone in Australia is very expensive? Could the trade-way factor in our margin of safety? So that carbon-costs would come down if our safety margin was high, but come back up again if our safety-margin came down?

If there were a trade-way to protect climate, I'd want to see that happen. Because then if I wanted my car or my air-conditioning or my computer I could perhaps work harder to pay for those things. Or maybe I could trade them for something less expensive but still have what I wanted. And I could check how everyone else was going, and if people in Somalia were struggling I could maybe donate money to help them. Or if people in Korea were misbehaving then I could yell at my government to do something about it.

The other way is a war-way, which I don't like at all, except as a last resort. Because once we start fighting each other over carbon, we'll find excuses to fight over other things too.

Residual problems

There are lots.

We don't know how much effort is enough. We can only guess.

We're not exactly sure who's producing how much carbon. We need a way of calculating that and keeping it honest.

We don't have global trading frameworks for anything.

We don't have an effective global policing power.

Nobody wants to start the ball rolling until someone else carries more risk than they do.

My Conclusions

Nothing in life is certain, but I don't think it's ethical to use uncertainty as an excuse for irresponsibility. We don't do that with our most precious things... if we even suspect kids are sick, we'll do everything we can to keep them well. Our climate is every bit as precious as our children.

If inaction is unethical, then delays are unethical too. If we notice that we're driving our car too fast, the right time to stop speeding is when we notice -- not when we think someone else will notice, or we're about to have an accident.

If inaction is unethical, then tolerating inaction is also unethical. If speeding is dangerous, then it doesn't matter which car is speeding.

If the problem is created by us, then we're individually and collectively responsible for solving it. And the degree to which we're responsible depends on the degree to which we're creating the problem.

If we wait for everyone to do everything before we do anything, nothing will get done. We need a common understanding of what must be done and by when, and then we need to think about how that breaks down into who does what.

If we want to do this peacefully and flexibly, we need a common trading framework with punishments and rewards built in. Otherwise, we'll end up fighting... first it will be over responsibility, then food and land and water... then oil and minerals and every other excuse we can dream up.

The residual problems are complicated, but they're nothing like as bad as the probable cost of not trying at all.

[benbradley]

So you would prefer carbon monoxide??
You DO know something!!! THAT was my point in asking.

Though as I recall, the push for the catalytic converter had more to do with other unburned or partially burned exhaust gases than with carbon monoxide.
We're operating in stages. We didn't know everything at the time converters were introduced. Is that your point in asking?? If not, please tell me what the point is. . . .
Are you saying we know everything now?

[benbradley]

I'm a firm advocate of 1) not doing the pot-kettle thing and 2) leading by example. I also appreciate the whole "get rid of the mote in thine own eye first" concept.

Perhaps some holier-than-thou would be permissible, but only once we have something to be holy about. Then we can send out ecological missionaries to show the rest of the world how to do it. And yes, I used missionaries intentionally, to evoke the image of peaceful, cooperative people sharing information.

How's that?
I was presuming "Country A" is already in an Apollo-Moonshot-like or Manhattan-Project-like project to reduce its own CO2 emissions by as much as it could afford to do (say by building windfarms at at least the rate T. Boone Pickens WAS doing, building nuclear fission plants, setting and enforcing hard goals on CO2 reductions - maybe even more money for commercial fusion research and development).

And with all that and if missionaries/diplomats don't convince other countries to change? Then what? What is the moral obligation to future Earth residents of Country A?

[SPMiller]

Make everyone pitch in: This is the option I like best. Someone needs to set a schedule and targets at the world-level and people need to break the targets down into who-does-what-when. And people who don't pitch in should be punished, and people who do should be rewarded.This, perhaps not surprisingly, is also the toughest sell. It doesn't matter what arguments you make; there will always be those who feel they have the right to consume as much as they like of whatever resource they like whenever they like, and if you don't like it you can go to hell.

[dmytryp]

There are, of course, those like Hugo Chavez and the likes who openly demanded in Copenhagen that US pay up because it "owes" them.

[Don]

Make everyone pitch in: This is the option I like best. Someone needs to set a schedule and targets at the world-level and people need to break the targets down into who-does-what-when. And people who don't pitch in should be punished, and people who do should be rewarded.

The residual problems are complicated, but they're nothing like as bad as the probable cost of not trying at all.
You do realize that some of us weren't born yesterday, right? We've been through the Commie Scare, and the Ozone Scare, and the Killer Bee Scare, and the Drug Scare, and the Poverty Scare, and right now they've got the Economy Scare and the Terror Scare and the Peak Oil Scare going, and the this scare and that scare and some other scare.

Hell, since the 1920's, the scientists have changed their mind between global warming and the next ice age four times! According to The Population Bomb, we were supposed to cover the planet toe-to-to and all be dead by now, assuming we survived Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.

And damned if EVERY SINGLE TIME, the only possible solution is for us to give up more of what makes us human and hand over more of our lives to some sheep-herder.

Also not surprisingly, the residual problems are always complicated, but we're always promisted that they're nothing like as bad as the probable cost of not trying at all.

Who knows? Maybe this will be the end of the world. Or maybe a mutant virus will escape from the control freaks' labs or a giant meteor strike will do us all in, and this will all become moot.

But if the people who lead really think they can con us again without Dog himself carving the warnings in the sky with a mighty finger, or some equally compelling evidence, they've got another think coming.

Our world is being led by little boys who find great joy in crying "Wolf," aided and abetted by any number of crooks who are glad to be in whatever happens to be the current wolf-control business. And when the wolf never shows up, they always exclaim success.

There are wolves alright, but they're the ones always doing the pointing and screaming at the latest terror to threaten humanity.

This, perhaps not surprisingly, is also the toughest sell. It doesn't matter what arguments you make; there will always be those who feel they have the right to consume as much as they like of whatever resource they like whenever they like, and if you don't like it you can go to hell.
There are also those who feel that being a good steward of the planet means to tread lightly, and those who feel everyone else should commit hari-kari and leave the pristine planet to the chosen few, which of course includes them.
There are, of course, those like Hugo Chavez and the likes who openly demanded in Copenhagen that US pay up because it "owes" them.
And this is the bottom line of every scare I've experienced in my 57 years on this planet. Somebody wants to take other people's stuff.

Keep your damned hands off my stuff, and off my life.




There, I feel better. :)

[dmytryp]

There, I feel better. :)
Have a cookie. It's early and it's Christmas eve :)

[Ruv Draba]

This, perhaps not surprisingly, is also the toughest sell. It doesn't matter what arguments you make; there will always be those who feel they have the right to consume as much as they like of whatever resource they like whenever they like, and if you don't like it you can go to hell.I agree. It may come down to what the big trading countries agree to do. If they're selfish, then I think the rest of the world will be selfish or aggressive or both.

If they're globally-focussed and put trade arrangements in place and show themselves wanting to be accountable for their impacts then I think that the rest of the world will find it much easier to follow.

To give you an idea, my country has been interested in getting on the front foot with climate change since the last change of government. We're a very dry country where nearly everyone lives on the coast, so we're naturally concerned. A sea-level rise of 1-2 metres will create a huge refugee problem in our region too, since it's full of low islands. Somehow we managed to meet our Kyoto targets while being a major world coal-exporter (don't ask me how that happened), and not actually signed up to Kyoto. Now our government is trying to introduce carbon-trading and so far can't get it up.

The main reason is that we're only directly responsible for around 1.5% of human carbon emissions globally (though per person we're actually slightly higher than the US because of our coal-fired power). No matter how much we do, whatever we do is going to be a token effort in global terms. Smaller economies can't actually lead -- they can only anticipate.

[Bird of Prey]

You DO know something!!! THAT was my point in asking.

Though as I recall, the push for the catalytic converter had more to do with other unburned or partially burned exhaust gases than with carbon monoxide.

Are you saying we know everything now?


No, but I think we know enough to take appropriate action.

This issue obviously is whether climate change in man made. Let's suppose it's not ultimately man made; it's a normal temperature flux as has been by demonstrated by the ebbing of ice caps in the past. To ignore it, however, is to err on the side of greed instead of caution, and clearly, ignoring it doesn't mitigate proven man made hazards that affect air and water.

I think a reasonable person wants to stem the tide of climate change, regardless of what's chiefly responsible. And there's no doubt we are contributing demonstrably. Perhaps we're not the overriding cause but we shouldn't be party at all to what's clearly an an acceleration. And that cause has ties to the entire green movement, which also address toxins in the air and water, habitat for other species, etc. If responsible management is the outcome of the entire debate, how can we lose??

[PeterL]

This has gotten quite a way from the opening.

I have been aware of the climate change thing since its beginning in the 1970's. I didn't find it very interesting, because there was very little evidence provided. A few months ago, I noticed that governments were preparing to do things that would cost me money, so I looked at the evidence. I was already aware of the cycles of climate,the agriculture on Greenland, the history of wine making in Great Britain, and so on. I started looking at what can make the Earth warmer or cooler and quickly found that CO2 isn't doing anything. CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas; more than 95 % of greenhouse effect is from water vapor (and water droplets in clouds). I also learned the humans have been responsible for a very small part of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Of the roughly 200 ppm increase in CO2, humans added about 10 or 12 ppm, which is within the range of normal variation from one year to another. Since human activity had added so little CO2, decreasing emissions would have an exceedingly small effect of temperature, but it would be a drag on economic activity.

One theory that I encountered was that global warming may have been aided by CFC's, but there doesn't sem to be any evidence for that. So it appears that the changes in climate have been caused by the traditional; method, variation in Solar output. It also appears that no one will gain any advantage from restrictions on CO2 emissions, unless they use the "cap-and-trade", which will give enrgy companies and traders huge profits.

[dmytryp]

This issue obviously is whether climate change in man made. Let's suppose it's not ultimately man made; it's a normal temperature flux as has been by demonstrated by the ebbing of ice caps in the past. To ignore it, however, is to err on the side of greed instead of caution,
Not really
and clearly, ignoring it doesn't mitigate proven man made hazards that affect air and water.
Not really, because they aren't the same and actually are completely separate issues. Cleaning water and air has nothing to do with curbing CO2 emissions that are intended to stop gw.

I think a reasonable person wants to stem the tide of climate change, regardless of what's chiefly responsible.
It isn't the question of what we want, it is a question of what we can do. This is really simple, if most of the warming is not due to CO2 then even curbing the emissions to zero would still have no impact on the warming. It will have other effects, though.

And there's no doubt we are contributing demonstrably. Perhaps we're not the overriding cause but we shouldn't be party at all to what's clearly an an acceleration.
This is nonsense. The warming is not accelerating, but stopped almost ten years ago and is actually cooling for the last several years (too few years to make a trend, but other indicators are clear). And for all the contribution is if its just a part, then it is almost negligible and the amount of change you'd be able to induce is equally negligible. It is really simple. The only way to not change the environment in any way is to die. I am pretty sure you are not advocating this, though.

And that cause has ties to the entire green movement, which also address toxins in the air and water, habitat for other species, etc. If responsible management is the outcome of the entire debate, how can we lose??
Because the outcomes are debatable, may also include a lot of people dieing etc?

[SPMiller]

There are, of course, those like Hugo Chavez and the likes who openly demanded in Copenhagen that US pay up because it "owes" them.Few if any Western countries like Chavez. I'd say he's easily ignored.

[dmytryp]

Few if any Western countries like Chavez. I'd say he's easily ignored.
Well, he is a. not alone, b. has influence in the UN and among the like of Russia and China, who can't be easily ignored.

[Ruv Draba]

You do realize that some of us weren't born yesterday, right?I know you were having a grump-attack but I still wanted to give you a considered response, Don. I think there were important points in your post, but I needed a bit of time to sift them out.

Let me first dispense with the stuff that I don't think is so important -- communists and killer-bees don't really relate to climate ethics so with your indulgence I'll ignore them. :)

The ozone hole though is very much related. We know that there's are natural and human-induced components to ozone depletion... The natural component comes and goes according to seasons and (for example) volcanic eruptions. The human component was only accumulating. Consequences here in Australia include high rates of cataracts and skin-cancers... and there are ecological consequences (e.g. to the Southern ocean) whose human impacts we still don't know.

Change in human behaviour is showing benefit in this case. Following the implementation of the Montreal Protocol in 1989 we've seen early signs of ozone recovery, commencing around 1997. It might have been sooner still, but there was serious volcanic activity in 1991. But ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere have dropped by 10% since their peak in 1994; we've moved from having ozone levels around 6% below 1960-80 averages in 1993 to a bit better than 4% below in 2005. I don't have data for how we're doing today -- it's the sort of thing we have to constantly monitor.

The ethical implications for me are that:

Humans can coordinate to act on a global scale
Industry and consumption can change to avert bad behaviours
Depending on human ingenuity, economies and human quality of life need not be harmed by introducing more responsible behaviours
It seems to me that the people who 'weren't born yesterday' did a good job being sensible, and so did everyone else. We will never be able to return to blissful ignorance; we'll have to monitor ozone forever more, but I see it as a good news story.

The key concern you seem to have is 'Don't take from me what's mine'. I'd like to use that as a jumping-off point for the ethics of 'mine' vs the ethics of 'ours'.

Humans are a paradoxical creatures. We're highly collective (our civilisations require enormous coordination and cooperation), but highly competitive too -- we compete for food, shelter and most of all, mates. The way I describe it is that we cooperate with each other so we can compete with each other. We first establish 'ours' then we fight like fury to claim 'mine'.

Ethically though, I believe that 'mine' can only exist within a context of 'ours' -- because our whole survival strategy is built on making 'ours' work.

So when 'ours' is threatened it is really important for us to notice that and set aside concerns of 'mine' until 'ours' is safe again.

But that is exactly what we do in times of disaster. We share property, resources, donate labour and never even ask ourselves why. I think that the sense of 'ours above mine in times of disaster' is actually wired into us, and it gladdens me.

The problem with environmental disasters -- especially man-made ones -- is that they don't manifest like fires, floods, earthquakes. Those disasters -- the ones we're evolved to react to quickly -- happen in real time. We smell smoke, and we turn from being 'me-centric' property-owners to 'us-centric' property-defenders.

But systems like climate and ozone don't work in human decision-times. The bleed quietly away across generations and won't even show us signs of the change unless we go and look and measure.

We are not good at moving from 'me-centric' to 'us-centric' on the basis of ideas. We like to see tangible evidence that there's a disaster or we suspect we're being conned.

Obviously, we're fine at working with ideas in other ways. We can design rockets, and do accounting, and make complex plans and schedules. But shifting our instincts in response to ideas rather than objects is hard for us. Some of us, in our apelike cores, don't even believe that ideas are real. Only food, shelter, sex and kin, pleasure, pain, fight and flight are real.

Well, unfortunately, civilisation requires us to keep growing. We're not done civilising ourselves yet. We still have the teeth and nails we once used for fighting, but they're not so useful now. A much more useful feature is our ability to deal with ideas as tangibles -- but because some ideas are real and some are imaginary we need the facility to work out which is which.

There are ways to do it, but not everyone has mastered those ways, and they're not exactly born to us. Since we need everyone to work together to avert disasters that are real as ideas, but which have yet to manifest tangibly, that's something we need to work on.

Keep your damned hands off my stuff, and off my life.Absolutely. But first we have to protect everyone's stuff and everyone's life. :LilLove:

[Bird of Prey]

Dm, do you have any knowledge of the stats regarding the receding of ice sheets in the Antarctic and Arctic??

[dmytryp]

Dm, do you have any knowledge of the stats regarding the receding of ice sheets in the Antarctic and Arctic??
Yes, I gave them to you when you first brought it up. You do know that the Antarctic sea ice expanded over the years, right?

[Bird of Prey]

Yes, I gave them to you when you first brought it up. You do know that the Antarctic sea ice expanded over the years, right?

What's relevant is the ice shelves melting, not the "expanded" water, albeit it helps feed the melting. I think what's relevant here is the implication globally should we refrain from curbing our own contribution toward warming. . . .

[dmytryp]

What's relevant is the ice shelves melting, not the "expanded" water, albeit it helps feed the melting. I think what's relevant here is the implication globally should we refrain from curbing our own contribution toward warming. . . .
Well, in the Arctic there is only sea ice to talk about, so that's obviously important. Why it supposedly isn't important in Antarctic (though by any physical standard it should be more important than in the Arctic), but ok. You got me intrigued. Do tell about ice sheet melting in Antarctic (though what do you seek to achieve by this I am not sure. I never claimed there wasn't temperature increase, and melting within itself isn't a sign of any human activity). As far as I know, most of the Antarctic (with the exception of the peninsula) hadn't warmed. There is an interesting debate as to why that is. There is also an interesting debate to be had about the arctic and the influence on ice (after all, there were instances of clear water at the north pole throughout past century)

EDIT: This is a summary for the Antarctic. From IPCC's site, there is huge variability and uncertainty when talking about the data in Antarctica.
I saw a mention from a recent paper, still looking for an original
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarctica_white_paper_final.pdf
Found the abstract
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD009094.shtml
A new monthly 1° × 1° Antarctic near-surface temperature reconstruction for 1960–2005 is presented. The use of numerical model fields to establish spatial relationships between fifteen continuous observational temperature records and the voids to which they are interpolated inherently accounts for the effects of the atmospheric circulation and topography on temperature variability. Employing a fixed observation network ensures that the reconstruction uncertainty remains constant in time. Comparison with independent observations indicates that the reconstruction and two other gridded observational temperature records are useful for evaluating regional near-surface temperature variability and trends throughout Antarctica. The reconstruction has especially good skill at reproducing temperature trends during the warmest months when melt contributes to ice sheet mass loss. The spatial variability of monthly near-surface temperature trends is strongly dependent on the season and time period analyzed. Statistically insignificant (p > 0.05) positive trends occur over most regions and months during 1960–2005. By contrast, 1970–2005 trends are weakly negative overall, consistent with positive trends in the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) during summer and autumn. Subtle near-surface temperature increases during winter from 1970 to 2000 are consistent with tropospheric warming from radiosonde records and a lack of winter SAM trends. Widespread but statistically insignificant (p > 0.05) warming over Antarctica from 1992 to 2005 coincides with a leveling off of upward SAM trends during summer and autumn since the mid-1990s. Weakly significant annual trends (p < 0.10) of about +1 K decade−1 are found at three stations in interior and coastal East Antarctica since 1992. The subtle shift toward warming during the past 15 years raises the question of whether the recent trends are linked more closely to anthropogenic influences or multidecadal variability.

[dmytryp]

Ahoi! BoP!!!!! Did you ask your question just to see if I weren't asleep, or did you plan on saying something in this regard?