A Penn State University professor of ethics, science, and law is proposing 20 questions U.S. media should ask opponents to action on climate change on the basis that climate change “raises civilization-challenging ethical issues.”
Associate Professor Donald A. Brown posted his thoughts recently on the Climate-L list serve. He began by briefly outlining common arguments frequently posed by those opposing U.S. climate change initiatives, generally involving issues of adverse economic impacts; and impacts having not been sufficiently demonstrated and proven scientifically.
“Both the economic and scientific arguments against climate change policies implicitly argue that climate change policies should be opposed because they are not in the U.S. national interest,” he summarized.
In addressing those concerns, advocates for action basically deny their opponents’ claims, he wrote.
Brown said he thinks that approach is counterproductive, and he said it ignores the ethical dimensions of the issue that “go beyond consideration of self-interest alone in making decisions.”
“Climate change is an ethical issue because its biggest victims are people who can do little to reduce its threat.”
Confronting climate change as an ethical issue is critical, he wrote, because the problem is caused primarily by wealthier societies, with “the world’s poorest people in developing countries” facing the most serious impacts. He pointed to “potentially catastrophic” impacts for many of the world’s poorest population groups.
The global scale of the issue, with no single government having jurisdiction on the same scale, means “ethical issues are necessary to motivate governments to take steps to prevent their citizens from seriously harming foreigners.”
Brown outlines the following questions that he thinks journalists should ask opponents of action:
1. You argue that climate change policies should not be adopted because there will be adverse economic impacts on U.S. jobs or the economy, given that greenhouse gas emissions from the United States are threatening others outside the United States do you deny that the United States has duties, responsibilities, and obligations to others to stop emissions potentially harmful to others?
2. Do you deny that the United States has duties, responsibilities, and obligations to others to limit U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to the U.S.’s fair share of safe global emissions?
3. If you agree that the United States has duties, responsibilities and obligations to others to limit its greenhouse gas emissions why should the acceptability of U.S. climate change policy turn on whether climate change policies will create adverse economic impacts to the United States alone?
4. If you argue that the United States should not adopt climate change policies on the basis that economic competitors such as China have not adopted climate change policies, are you claiming that no nation has a duty to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to its fair share of safe global emissions until all other nations reduce their greenhouse gas emissions accordingly?
5. If you argue that the United States should not adopt climate change policies on the basis that economic competitors such as China have not adopted climate change reduction policies, do you agree that economic competitors such as China have no duty to reduce their emissions until the United States does so?
6. Do you deny that those nations who are mostly responsible for global climate change emissions have stronger duties to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions than those nations that are emitting greenhouse gases at much lower levels?
7. Do you agree that no national strategy on climate change makes sense unless it is seen to be implicitly a position on what atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases should be acceptable given that some poorer nations are more vulnerable to climate change than others and nations must work together to assure that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases don’t rise to levels that are very dangerous to the most vulnerable?
8. What is the U.S.’s fair share of safe global greenhouse gas emissions and on what principles of equity do you rely on for determining the U.S.’s fair share?
9. Should those nations who have refused to commit to reduce climate change emissions on the basis of cost to them be liable to others for the harms caused by the delay if very harsh climate change impacts are eventually experienced by others?
10. When you argue that the United States should not adopt climate change policies because adverse climate change impacts have not yet been proven, are you claiming that climate change skeptics have proven that human-induced climate change will not create adverse impacts on the human health, resource base, and ecological systems of others and if so what is that proof?
11. When you argue that the United States should not adopt climate change policies because there is scientific uncertainty about adverse climate change impacts, are you arguing that no action of climate change should be taken until scientific uncertainties are resolved given that waiting to resolve all scientific uncertainties before action is taken may make it too late to prevent human-induced climate change harms?
12. Do you deny that those who argue that they should be allowed to continue to emit greenhouse gases at levels that may be dangerous should assume the burden of proof that their actions are safe?
13. Do you deny that those who are most vulnerable to climate change’s harshest potential impacts have a right to participate in a decision about whether to act to reduce the threat of climate change in the face of scientific uncertainty?
14. Given that in ratifying the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change the United States in 1992 agreed to the following under Article 3, do you believe the United States is now free to ignore this promise by refusing to action on climate change on the basis of scientific uncertainty?
The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost.
15. If you argue that if the climate change impacts predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have not reached a level of scientific certainty that warrants action, do you agree that climate change impacts predicted by IPCC could be wrong in both directions leading to even harsher adverse impacts than those predicted?
16. If you acknowledge that human-induced climate change impacts could be harsher than those predicted by IPCC, do you deny that this possibility has ethical significance including the creation of duties for high emitters to cease dangerous emissions levels.
17. Given that it has been almost two decades that the United States has refused to commit to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions based upon the justification that there is too much scientific uncertainty to warrant action, if it turns out that human-induced climate change actually greatly harms others human health and the environment should the United States be responsible for the harms that could have been avoided if preventative action had been taken earlier?
18. Because climate change is a global problem, does any one nation have the right by itself to refuse to reduce the climate change threat based upon scientific uncertainty without giving those most vulnerable to climate change impacts the right to consent to be put at risk?
19. Because the longer the developed countries including the United States wait to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions on the basis of scientific uncertainty the steeper the cuts will be needed to avoid dangerous climate change if the mainstream climate change science view proves to be correct, should the United States be expected to agree that it will be financially responsible for unavoidable climate change damages created by the delay if predicted climate change impacts are experienced?
20. Because one the possibilities recognized by mainstream climate change science is that the Earth could experience rapid non-linear climate change impacts which outstrip the ability of some people and nations to adapt, should this fact affect who should have the burden of proof of determining whether climate change is safe or dangerous?