Climate Justice

An Introduction

Dominic Roser, Christian Seidel

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317209522
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

The link between justice and climate change is becoming increasingly prominent in public debates on climate policy. This clear and concise philosophical introduction to climate justice addresses the hot topic of climate change as a moral challenge.

Using engaging everyday examples the authors address the core arguments by providing a comprehensive and balanced overview of this heated debate, enabling students and practitioners to think critically about the subject area and to promote discussion on questions such as:

• 
  
  

• Why do anything in the face of climate change?
• How much do we owe our descendants – a better world, or nothing at all?
• How should we distribute the burden of climate action between industrialized and developing countries?
• Should I adopt a green lifestyle even if no one else makes an effort?
• Which means of reducing emissions are permissible?
• Should we put hope in technological solutions?
• Should we re-design democratic institutions for more effective climate policy?

With chapter summaries, illustrative examples and suggestions for further reading, this book is an ideal introduction for students in political philosophy, applied ethics and environmental ethics, as well as for practitioners working on one of the most urgent issues of our time.

1
Climate change as an ethical challenge

There is no avoiding the issue of climate change: When summer temperatures rise, hurricanes bear down on the US coast, Europe’s rivers burst their banks, or the receding polar ice caps open up new shipping lanes, people often ask whether these are already indications of climate change. The energy transition—restructuring the energy supply system to increase the proportion of renewable energies aimed at bringing climate change to a halt—is a permanent item on the political agenda and, once a year, we read about major international climate negotiations. In our everyday lives, we encounter the topic of climate change at the gas station in the form of biofuel, at the supermarket when we read instructions about the carbon footprint of certain products, and when the travel agent asks us if we want to fly climate-neutral. And maybe you have also asked yourself, when hiking in the Alps, what has actually happened to the glaciers.

But climate change also confronts us with a whole series of open questions, many of them scientific in nature: Is climate change already occurring? How extreme will it be? To what extent is it caused by human activity? These are empirical issues that science can answer. But there is another range of questions that has more to do with politics and our everyday actions: What measures should the government undertake against climate change? What would a just international climate treaty look like? Do we have a duty to limit our prosperity in order to protect future generations against climate damage? Is it still acceptable to drive to the supermarket or fly to Spain for a short holiday? These questions are not about what is in fact occurring, and what politics and each of us is in fact doing, regarding climate change; rather, they are about what should happen and what we ought to do when faced with climate change. Questions about what one ought to do are normative, not empirical, questions. When it comes (as in the present case) to clarifying what is just, what is our duty, what is allowed, and what is forbidden, then we are dealing more precisely with moral questions. What is at stake in this second range of questions, therefore, is the correct moral response to the problem of climate change: How should political institutions and individual lifestyles be adapted? That is the topic of this book.

Three key questions of climate ethics

Why do we even ask moral questions regarding climate change? Is it not simply a natural phenomenon like the rotation of the moon around the Earth? If we do not ask moral questions in the case of other natural phenomena, why should we do so with regard to climate change? It is true that very few people have ever wondered what they or their political representatives should do about the rotation of the moon around the Earth. This is because human beings play no role here: They neither caused the motion of the moon nor can they influence it. So no moral questions arise concerning the moon either.

However, the case of climate change is different. Climate change is a “natural” phenomenon only insofar as it occurs “in nature.” Unlike the movement of the moon, climate change is largely man-made and as such can be stopped, slowed down, or accelerated by human action. How exactly do human beings influence the climate? This can be explained very briefly as follows (see Maslin 2004 and Archer and Rahmstorf 2010 for more detailed introductions). Our planet is surrounded by the atmosphere, which acts as an insulating layer: It allows the sun’s radiation in, but not to the same extent back out. This is the so-called greenhouse effect, which, on a natural scale, makes possible the climate and the temperature level we have experienced on the Earth until now. However, the greenhouse effect depends on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. When this concentration increases, less radiation is released back into space and, as a result, it becomes hotter in “greenhouse earth.” The most important greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO₂), and methane (CH₄). There have been constant fluctuations in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases during the course of the Earth’s history. With the onset of industrialization, however, human beings began to burn fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) on an enormous scale and to cut down forests for settlements or agricultural use. Although rice cultivation, automobiles, airplanes, oil- or gas-fired heating, cement and steel production, and coal-fired power plants for industrial production have contributed to high levels of prosperity, they also mean that human beings have increased the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases in two ways simultaneously: On the one hand, burning fossil fuels sets free large amounts of greenhouse gases; on the other hand, forests serve as natural CO₂ sinks, so fewer forests means more free CO₂ in the atmosphere. As a result, the concentration of CO₂ has increased by more than 35 percent from 280 parts per million (ppm) since the onset of industrialization. This exceeds by far the natural fluctuation over the past 650,000 years. There has been a continual increase in emissions in recent decades, because the human population is both growing and becoming increasingly affluent, and hence is producing more and more emissions. The most well-known result is an increase in temperature. And this trend is continuing: If no further efforts are made to reduce emissions, then a rise in temperature of between 2.5 and 7.8°C compared to the second half of the 19th century is expected in the year 2100 (IPCC 2014).

However, climate change and the rotation of the moon around the Earth differ not only in terms of the causal role played by human beings, but also in terms of how they affect human beings. The moon may influence sleepwalkers and, through the tides, also fishermen. Climate change, by contrast, has much more far-reaching effects on our lives. When temperatures rise, glaciers, which serve as water reservoirs for the summer, begin to melt and the melt water ends up in rivers that supply human beings with water. Without glaciers, there is less water in summer for agriculture, energy production, and daily use. At higher temperatures, the polar ice caps melt and the water spreads into the oceans; owing to the resulting rise in the sea level, land masses contract and the groundwater becomes salinated near the coast where a large proportion of mankind lives. Ocean currents and precipitation patterns change; the resulting increase in the frequency of extreme weather events such as hurricanes, floods, and droughts will make people homeless and destitute, and will aggravate famines resulting from declines in crop yields. Lower crop yields are synonymous with migration, less (and lower quality) water is synonymous with more conflicts. More frequent heat waves will lead to an increase in suffering and mortality among the old and weak. More people will be affected by tropical diseases because, in a warmer climate, the insects that serve as vectors for these diseases will gain a foothold in new regions.

Viewed in this way, it is obvious that climate change raises moral questions. Some of the effects to be expected, such as poverty, famine, death, and suffering, clearly give rise to a need for action—in particular, it seems that we should do our utmost to prevent climate change. We should, it seems, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and conserve and expand the natural sinks for greenhouse gases (such as forests). In other words, we have a moral duty to protect the climate.

For some, however, this inference is overly hasty. It might be contended that the science may be wrong and that climate change will not occur at all, or that it may also have positive aspects that outweigh the negative. One might also take the view that climate change is a remote prospect that does not affect any living human being and that one cannot have any obligations toward people who do not exist. Therefore we must examine more closely whether we have a duty to do anything at all when confronted with climate change. This is the first fundamental moral question raised by climate change. We will discuss it in Part I.

Let us assume that the answer to this first question is in the affirmative: We do have to protect the climate. Climate protection is not an all-or-nothing affair, however, but a matter of degree: One can do more or less to protect the climate. Thus, even if it were established that we must do something when faced with climate change, it would still remain open how much should be done. How far must we go to protect the climate? How extensive should our efforts be? We will discuss this second fundamental moral question concerning climate change in Part II.

This then leads to a further issue: Even if we were to know how much climate protection we needed to perform, this would not tell us anything about how the amount of climate protection required should be distributed across different shoulders. Who must do what exactly? Which contributions must individual countries make and which costs must they bear? This is the third fundamental moral question concerning climate change and it will be treated in Part III.

The role of ethics between science and politics

Three fundamental questions, therefore, play a central role in the ethical controversy over climate change and hence are central to this book:

• (1) Do we have a duty to do anything at all in the face of climate change?
• (2) Assuming that we are obliged to do something, how much should we do?
• (3) How should these duties be distributed?

As already stated, these are moral questions. It is not the role of science to answer them: Science can tell us only how the world is. But from statements about how the world is nothing follows about how the world ought to be. This means that science can make only statements such as the following (see IPCC 2014: 20): “Emissions scenarios leading to CO₂-equivalent concentrations in 2100 of about 450 ppm or lower are likely to maintain warming below 2°C over the 21st century relative to pre-industrial levels.” (Here, “CO₂-equivalent” refers to a unit of measurement for comparing the different climatic effects of various greenhouse gases.) But science cannot answer the question of whether we should avoid warming of more than 2°C. Such questions—moral questions—belong instead to ethics. This is why we will also call the three abovementioned fundamental moral questions concerning climate change the “three key questions of climate ethics.”

That these three ethical questions cannot be answered by science does not mean, of course, that scientific findings are irrelevant for answering them. On the contrary—ethics is a matter of evaluating individual conduct and climate policy measures from a moral point of view. For this, we need to know the properties and effects of these actions and measures, because our moral evaluation depends on this. And science provides us with descriptions of just these properties and effects. Thus ethical evaluation presupposes scientific description.

There is a close connection not only between science and ethics, but also between ethics and politics—for what is ethically right in the face of climate change should also ultimately be translated into practice. This is, on the one hand, a matter of individual action, but also, on the other, a matter of the political design of the social, legal, and economic framework within which this action takes place—in other words, of climate policy. For example, countries are reorienting their energy policies in the light of climate change and are concluding international climate treaties, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted in 1992, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, or the 2015 Paris Agreement. Politicians and voters ask themselves which climate policy is the right one, all things considered, and hence which measures should be taken in the face of climate change. Aside from economic aspects, ethical considerations are clearly relevant here—in particular, the aspect of justice. Presumably, politicians and voters do not opt for a specific climate policy based solely on considerations of justice. However, few of them would advocate a climate policy that they consider to be extremely unjust. Thus ethics helps politicians and voters in their deliberations, and as such it is certainly relevant for practice. In addition, a proposed international climate agreement that was perceived to be unjust (for example one that imposed the main burdens on the poor developing countries that have hardly any responsibility for climate change) would be rejected for this reason alone and hence would not be implemented. Thus the ethical category of justice is also a criterion for successful climate policy—although by no means the only one—and this also makes ethics relevant for politics. This means that ethical reflection is, in a certain sense, the bridge between science and policy: Building on the scientific description of the facts, ethics evaluates different options from a moral point of view and makes recommendations for the morally correct climate policy.

But we should not expect too much from ethics either. It goes without saying that ethical reflection alone does not change the world; the world will become a better place only if we also do the right thing. Careful ethical reflection is, however, the first step in that direction, because if we are to do the right thing, we first need to know what the right thing is. That is precisely the aim of ethical reflection. It uses conceptual analysis and the critical examination of arguments to distinguish good from bad answers to the key questions of climate ethics. In this way, it equips every individual—and, in particular, political decision-makers—with a moral compass that can provide orientation for climate policy (but also, of course, for each individual in his or her actions).

However, it is not at all easy to follow this compass in political practice as well. The concrete implementation of the morally ideal climate policy gives rise to complications that raise a series of further ethical questions. For example, not all countries are willing to act cooperatively and some ignore their climate protection duties altogether. How should a “conscientious” country respond when other countries fail to do their part to protect the climate? Does it have to redouble its efforts or might it likewise reduce them? Which emission reduction strategy should the country adopt then: reducing population growth, reducing economic growth, or adopting cleaner technologies? And what does the much-vaunted policy instrument of emissions trading look like from an ethical point of view? Can it be legitimate for rich people to continue to produce emissions without qualms as long as they pay an “indulgence”? Or should we each not put our own house in order first? Also, given that we disagree about the best course of action to be taken, how should we design collective decision-making procedures? Are democratic procedures an obstacle or an asset when it comes to solving climate change? We will discuss these ethical complications of political practice in Part IV, after we have constructed a “moral compass” for the ideal climate policy by answering the three key questions of climate ethics in Parts I–III.

The ethical peculiarities of the problem of climate change

Unfortunately, constructing this moral compass is no easy matter either. Climate change exhibits a number of peculiarities that mean that it is difficult to answer the key ethical questions that it poses. Consider the following example:

It is night. You are riding your bicycle and, to get home faster, you take a shortcut across the field of a neighboring farmer, thereby damaging his crops. Was it wrong to take the shortcut?

Now consider another situation:

It is night and, to get home faster, you take your car instead of going by bike. In the process, you emit CO₂ and, together with emissions of many other people, this slowly changes the climate. Decades later, this leads to crop losses for farmers in remote developing countries. Was it wrong to take the car?

Many answer the first question spontaneously with “yes,” but, after long reflection, answer the second with a “Well … ” Although these two situations seem very similar at first sight, we are less sure of our moral judgments in the case of climate change than in everyday situations. Climate change seems to turn our sense of right and wrong on its head. But what is so morally peculiar and confusing about climate change?

When we examine the two situations more clo...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of illustrations
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Climate change as an ethical challenge
• PART I Do we need to do anything at all? Moral justification of the need to act
• PART II How much do we need to do? Intergenerational justice
• PART III How should we assign responsibility? Global justice
• PART IV From ethical theory to political practice
• Glossary
• Index