Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Ethics Stronger than Self-Interest in Motivating Action on Climate Change Debate

...excerpts from the Climate Ethics blog...



Are Ethical Arguments for Climate Change Action Weaker Than Self-Interest Based Arguments? Why Taking Ethical Arguments Off the Table Is Like A Soccer Team Unilaterally Taking The Goalie Out of the Net.

By DONALD A BROWN on August 15, 2010 6:58 PM

I. Introduction

Many commentators to ClimateEthics argue that since people are self-interested beings, it is more important to make arguments in support of climate change based upon self-interest rather than ethical arguments. Some go so far to assert that people don't care about ethics and therefore only self-interest-based arguments should be used to convince people to enact domestic climate change legislation. In other words, they argue:"get real" only self-interest arguments matter.

This view has dominated much discussion of climate change policy in the United States. No U.S. politician known to ClimateEthics has been expressly making the ethical arguments that need to be made in response to objections to proposed climate change policies. As ClimateEthics has previously reported, this is not the case in at least a few other parts of the world. See [previous post].



Almost all arguments in the United States in support of climate change policies have been different self-interest based arguments such as climate change policies will protect the United States against adverse climate caused damages in the United States, create good green jobs, or are necessary to prevent national security risks to the United States that might be created if millions of people become refugees fleeing diminished water supplies or droughts that are adversely affecting food supplies. There are no known politically visible arguments being made in the United States that argue that the United States should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions because it has duties, obligations, and responsibilities to others. In particular, there has been no coverage of the specific ethical arguments for climate change legislation in the mainstream media except with a very few infrequent exceptions.

II. The Strength of Ethical Arguments In Support of Climate Change Policies.

We have explained many times in ClimateEthics why climate change not only creates issues of self-interest but also duties, responsibilities to others. In summary fashion, this is so because: (a) climate change is a problem caused by some people that most harshly harms others, (b) the harms to others are likely to be catastrophic under business-as-usual, (c) because of the global scope of the problem and the inability of victims of climate change to petition their own governments to protect them, only with successful appeals to the ethics of foreigners can the victims of climate change hope to get protective action, and, (d) obligations to future generations are part of the prescriptive calculus. Given that climate change raises not only self-interest questions but matters about which there are duties, obligations, and responsibilities to others ethical arguments are stronger than self-interest arguments in the following ways:

(a) Scientific Arguments Against Climate Change Policies.

Once one sees the ethical obligations to others one easily sees the duty to think about scientific uncertainty of climate change impacts through the lens of the victims. This is particularly important because it is those who will most harshly be harmed by climate change impacts that have the most to loose if the mainstream climate change view turns out to be correct. In fact, the victims of climate change have the strongest interest in seriously considering the possibility of potential but unproven catastrophic harms actually happening and have the most to loose by waiting until all uncertainties are resolved...The decision to do nothing in the face of uncertainty could have consequences and those consequences will most harshly be experienced by those most vulnerable, that is the poorest people in parts of the world most vulnerable to harsh climate change impacts.

(b) Economic and Cost Arguments

Particularly in response to cost arguments made in opposition to climate change policies ethical arguments have an important resonance and for some arguments are the only way of showing deficiencies with cost-based arguments in opposition to climate change policies. Examples of this are the following:

(1) Once one sees ethical duties to others it is easier to understand what is wrong with many cost arguments made against climate change policies. For instance, during the debate about the Kyoto Protocol, the United States governess only considered two cost-benefit analyses that looked only at costs and benefits to the United States alone. In other words, the United States acted as if only costs and benefits to the United States counted.

(3) Only an ethical appeal to duties of future generations can correct the usual approach followed in cost-benefit analyses to discount the value of benefits that are experienced in future in such away that the future benefits are virtually worthless in the present. Fort this reason, only an appeal to duties to future generations can demonstrate problems with disenfranchising future generations' interests in discounting methods commonly followed in cost-benefit analysis based arguments made in opposition to climate change policies.

(5) Because climate change impacts can interfere with the basic human rights of the victims of climate change, only an appeal to the ethical duty to avoid human rights violations can effectively deal with some of the arguments against climate change action based upon cost. It is well established in international law that increased cost to those who are responsible for human rights violations may not be used as a justification for continuing human rights violations.

(6) Only an appeal to ethics and justice can correct the tendency of many cost arguments to reduce the value of everything harmed to their market value...Cost arguments against climate change policies often determine the value of climate change harms avoided on the basis of market values alone, that is on the basis of "willingness-to-pay" alone. For instance, some cost-benefit analyses relied upon by some opponents of climate change action have assumed that the value of lives lost by foreigners to be the earning power in the remaining lives of the people who will be killed thus making the value of the lives of poor people less valuable that people in rich countries. Only an appeal to ethics can demonstrate why this may be unjust.

(d) Responsibility for Damages

Many principles of international law make polluting nations responsible for damages caused by harm they cause others in proportion to their contribution to the problem. For instance, in international law the "no-harm" and "polluter-pays" principles have been agreed to by the the United States in a variety of soft-law documents and in the case of the "no harm" principle in binding law under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty ratified by the United States under the George Bush the First in 1993...If the Untied States is worried about economic impacts of climate change it should be worried particularly about the implications of ethical rules that would allocate responsibility for damages. This is a matter of retributive justice, not self-interest.

III-Conclusion

Because the ethical arguments discussed above are the strongest arguments for climate change policy, it is both a practical mistake as well as an ethical failure to not frame climate change policy options through an ethical lens.

By:

Donald A. Brown
Associate Professor, Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law
Dab57@psu.edu

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Christian Response to Senate Inaction

...from the latest Eco-Justice Notes by Peter Sawtell



Jesus and the Climate Bill

distributed 7/30/10 - ©2010


This week's issue of Eco-Justice Notes is underwritten by Sarah Johnson, of Denver, Colorado. Her generous support helps make this publication possible.

The US Senate has given up on any pretense of developing a comprehensive climate and energy bill this summer. "Disappointed" just does not capture my reaction at this point. More vivid words are needed: angry, disgusted, frustrated and grief-stricken.

So what do we do now?

Without being trite or sarcastic, I find two pieces of contradictory advice from Jesus about how to deal with times of great hurt and disappointment. There is truth in two recommendations about intractable situations.

  • "If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them." (Mark 6:11)

  • "Peter came and said to him, 'Lord, if another member of the church sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?' Jesus said to him, 'Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times.'" (Matthew 18:21-22)

Which shall we do? Give up on a hopeless cause, or be persistent and forgiving in the relationship? Perhaps it is best to do some of each.

+ + + + +

I presume that most readers of these Notes see the failure of the Senate to deal with climate as genuinely sinful. It is a sin against God and the creation.

Bartholomew I, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Orthodox Churches, has written, "To commit a crime against the natural world is a sin ... for humans to contaminate the earth's water, its land, its air, and its life with poisonous substances ... these are sins." So, too, it is a sin when our national leaders refuse to act on the most essential matters addressing the crisis of global heating.

It is sin, and as people of faith, we must be ready to forgive, even when the sin is great and recurring. Not just seven times, but seventy-seven times. (If you're keeping count of the votes and the public statements, you probably need to forgive on the 78th time, too.)

But forgiveness does not mean that we are passive. Luke's version of the "forgive seven times" theme includes an important dimension. "If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive." (Luke 17:3) Even when it happens seven times in one day. (The apostles replied, "Increase our faith!")

When we are witnesses to sin, we must rebuke the offender. We must announce the sin, and call for repentance. It is faithful and appropriate to hold accountable those who stymied any consideration of climate provisions in this summer's energy legislation. It is fair to challenge those Senators who would have supported a strong bill, but who never took action among their colleagues to make such legislation politically viable.

(By way of disclosure, both of the Senators from my home state, Colorado, probably would have voted for the potential climate provisions. Each of our Senators exercised some leadership on related issues. They were not the most prominent leaders in the cause, but did some decent things. Thanks are appropriate, too.)

"Rebuking" is one form of action that is being encouraged by the climate action groups that I respect. Contact your Senators, and other Senate leaders. Let them know that you are angry and disappointed -- perhaps by their personal stance, and certainly by the Senate's collective failure. (As people of faith, we can speak theologically about how their failure to act is sinful.) When the Senators are back home for the August recess, show up at their public events (called "shadowing" to make statements, and to ask questions about their stance on climate.

That is one side of our action. Rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, forgive.

+ + + + +

There is also truth in the advice Jesus gave to those sent out to preach. If a community refuses to hear you, go elsewhere.

For more than a decade, significant action on climate has been more than the Senate can handle. There are all sorts of reasons for that, ranging from pure partisan divisiveness, to corporate influence, to the misbegotten sense that the job of a Senator is to deliver short-term goodies to the state. There is little sense of gracious statesmanship which looks to the long-term common good. As many people have said recently, the Senate is broken.

If comprehensive legislation that will start to coordinate US action on climate is too hard for the Senate, then shake the dust from our feet, and go elsewhere. Don't give up, but go to work somewhere that can make a difference. There are many realms for our action.

Continued political advocacy will be needed to ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency can develop rules constraining greenhouse gasses. If Congress cannot or will not pass proactive climate legislation, then administrative action must be taken. We must witness -- to politicians, and within our communities -- about our support of strong new EPA rules to enforce the Clean Air Act.

The US government is not the only place where action is being taken. Cities and states are moving toward a wide range of effective actions that address the climate crisis. They are defining standards for renewable energy, making bold decisions that block new coal fired power plants, developing strong new building codes, and reworking transportation infrastructure. States and provinces are creating "cap and trade" systems that embody what has been impossible at the national level. We can make a difference by being engaged locally and regionally where success is possible.

Part of the Senate's paralysis comes from procedural rules that are being abused. The filibuster used to be a rare tool engaged in extraordinary times, but it has become so common that virtually any action in the Senate now needs 60 votes. Action to reform Senate rules (or to have consequences for the misuse of those rules) might make it possible for the US Congress to move on climate legislation in the future.

We also need to remember that the political realm, while important, is not the only place where we can act. We can use investments to shape business policies. We can call for our friends and neighbors to join us as we seek to live more gently and justly as part of the Earth community. We can educate about the reality of climate change and other ecological threats. We can preach good news about the hope to be found in sustainable living.

+ + + + +

Two thousand years ago, Jesus wasn't describing political strategies to be used in the heart of a global empire to address an unfolding ecological crisis. But he was talking about how to be both faithful and strategic in doing God's work in the world. His advice holds true, even about how to respond when the US Senate fails to do what is most important.

Rebuke, and be willing to forgive. Go to work where you can make a difference.

As the apostles said, "increase our faith!" so that we, too, might do that work.

Shalom!

Peter Sawtell
Executive Director
Eco-Justice Ministries