Surely the argument should be decided on the balance of probabilities, not on the pursuit of certainty as is argued here. We cannot fiddle with certainty whilst Rome burns.
A 2008/12/5 Alvia Gaskill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=1365 > > > Opinion > > The Ethics of Climate Change > > When it comes to setting climate change policy, science can only tell us so > much. Ultimately, a lead report author for the Intergovernmental Panel on > Climate Change writes, it comes down to making judgments about what is fair, > equitable, and just. > > by richard c. j. somerville > > A world in which all human beings were equal, rational, and perfectly > governed, when confronted with the prospect of global warming, might reach > an optimal decision based on compelling climate science. That ideal world > would then find effective international agreements to restrict greenhouse > gas emissions and avoid harmful climate change. > > We do not live in such a world. In reality, the science of climate change, > no matter how advanced, will never be sufficient to tell humanity what to > do. Science may be able to inform policy by forecasting how severe climate > change will be, given different greenhouse gas levels. However, experience > teaches that science alone is never enough. When confronting environmental > challenges, considerations of fairness, equity, and justice must also inform > any successful international agreement. > > This is certainly true of three major ethical dilemmas now complicating the > climate change debate: how to balance the rights and responsibilities of the > developed and developing world; how to evaluate geo-engineering schemes > designed to reverse or slow climate change; and how to assess our > responsibility to future generations who must live with a climate we are > shaping today. > > The 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, > together with subsequent agreements, is often hailed as a model > environmental treaty. Although replacing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) clearly > is much easier than weaning the world off fossil fuels, the ethical > dimension of the ozone treaty holds lessons for tackling global warming. In > dealing with CFCs, governments, industry, and science — realizing that CFCs > and related manmade chemicals caused ozone depletion — quickly developed > ozone-safe substitutes. And recognizing that developed and developing > countries had differing legitimate concerns, the international ozone > agreements called for developed countries to take the lead in addressing the > issue, because these nations had produced most of the substances implicated > in destroying stratospheric ozone. A fund was established to help developing > countries phase out ozone-destroying chemicals. Technology transfer was > addressed. > > Many different segments of society now recognize that an effective climate > agreement must also have such an ethical dimension. Religious organizations > have contributed to the dialogue, addressing such fundamental questions as > the rights of poor people and developing nations. "Action to mitigate global > climate change," the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has > declared in a statement, "must be built upon a foundation of social and > economic justice that does not put the poor at greater risk or place > disproportionate and unfair burdens on developing nations." > > Nearly all the nations of the world now agree that atmospheric greenhouse > gases should be kept below a level that would produce dangerous human-caused > climate change. However, exactly what level is "dangerous"? > > The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is required by its > mandate to be policy-neutral. As one of the authors of its 2007 Fourth > Assessment Report, I can testify that IPCC scrupulously avoided all forms of > policy advocacy. Its task was simply to assess the scientific research > literature in a way that was policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive. > > In any case, dangerous climate change is a subjective concept, depending on > one's values and risk tolerance, among other factors. Science cannot say > that a given atmospheric level of greenhouse gases is safe, and another > slightly higher one is not. Expecting that degree of precision from climate > science is as unrealistic as expecting medical science to declare that one > level of cholesterol is surely tolerable, and any higher level is certain to > lead to a heart attack. Climate is complex. Einstein once remarked that > everything should be made as simple as possible, but not more simple than > that. > > However, science, speaking through the IPCC, can provide guidance by > suggesting what degree of severity of climate change is likely to be > associated with any specific amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. > This information is found in great detail in the IPCC reports. Mainstream > climate scientists like me regard these reports as the gold standard in our > field. We use IPCC reports as textbooks for our graduate students, and they > have been recognized as authoritative by national academies of science, by > scientific professional societies, and most recently by the award of the > 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. The IPCC reports have guided the European Union in > formally adopting a specific goal of holding global warming to no more than > 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average pre-industrial > temperature of the mid-19th century. > > In December 2007, at a major United Nations-sponsored climate conference in > Bali, I joined other climate scientists to help publicize a statement signed > by more than 200 climate scientists from more than 20 countries. Many of > these scientists were also IPCC authors, but all of us signed the statement > strictly as individuals. Our statement declared that by 2050 global > greenhouse gas emissions should be cut by at least 50 percent below 1990 > levels. The goal, we scientists said, should be to stabilize greenhouse gas > concentrations at a CO2-equivalent level well below 450 parts per million. > > Not surprisingly, the Bali negotiators failed to reach an agreement in which > nations accepted binding commitments with firm timetables and quantitative > targets for greenhouse gas reductions. The problem was not that the science > was unreliable or that the negotiators were incompetent. The major obstacle > was that nations, like individuals, do not take major decisions solely on > the basis of scientific results. This realization may seem obvious, but we > scientists are often politically naïve. > > It is now increasingly clear that meaningful international action to limit > climate change not only requires compelling scientific evidence and > recognition of legitimate national interests, but also must focus on > considerations of equity and ethics. The climate system is a global commons. > Yet the consequences and costs of climate change do not fall equally on all > nations and all parts of the globe. And with fossil fuels now supplying 80 > percent of global energy, and thus enabling much of modern economic > progress, nations will accept constraints on their freedom to emit > greenhouse gases only when they are satisfied they are being treated fairly > as part of a global response. > > The differing perspectives of developed and developing nations — and the > contrast between past and future actions — remain a key issue. Today, more > than one out of every four molecules of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has > been put there by human actions, chiefly burning coal, oil, and natural gas. > If we ask which nations are responsible for this dramatic increase in > greenhouse gases, the answer is obvious — the developed nations. The United > States, currently with about 5 percent of global population, has produced > about a quarter of all the carbon dioxide that humankind has added to the > atmosphere. > > On the other hand, if we ask where the future growth in carbon dioxide > emissions will originate, the answer is that the developing nations will > largely be responsible. The developing nations with large populations — > China foremost, followed by India, Brazil, Russia and others — are rapidly > exploiting fossil fuels to power economic development. China, which now > builds a new large coal-fired power plant every week or so, has already > passed the United States as the nation that emits the most carbon dioxide. > Is this fair? Ethical concerns demand a principled understanding of the > differing rights and obligations of both developed and developing countries. > > The sobering prospect of using geo-engineering to counter human-caused > climate change also raises profound ethical issues. Many geo-engineering > approaches are conceivable. For example, it is relatively easy to propose > ways to make the Earth more reflective, in the hope that reduced absorption > of sunlight might compensate for a strengthened greenhouse effect. Large > mirrors might be placed in space. Sulfate particles or their chemical > predecessors might be launched into the stratosphere. As the consequences of > human-caused climate change become more severe and apparent, the temptation > to seek a relatively simple technological remedy will surely increase. > > I believe this temptation should be resisted. At best, if it worked well, > geo-engineering would be addictive, committing future generations to > continue it and encouraging further reliance on fossil fuels. More probably, > geo-engineering would create additional problems while exacerbating existing > ones. Artificially increasing the Earth's reflectivity, for example, does > nothing about the ongoing acidification of the oceans resulting from carbon > dioxide being added to the atmosphere. > > Research is far preferable to ignorance, and I feel about geo-engineering > exactly as I do about nuclear war: Study it, by all means, but never try it. > It would be highly irresponsible to conduct a massive international > intervention on our planet without being virtually certain there would be no > side effects making the cure worse than the disease. Such certainty is > highly unlikely. Even relatively simple, small-scale plans can go wrong. If > geo-engineering is the last resort in a worst-case scenario, let us do all > we can to avoid that scenario. Who has the moral — and legal — right, on > behalf of all nations, to tinker with the entire global environment? > > Finally, the issue of intergenerational equity requires agreement on how > decisions taken now may affect people not yet born. The climate system has > several built-in delaying mechanisms. The consequences of a heightened > greenhouse effect appear after a time lag, often decades or more. Oceans, as > well as ice and snow, react slowly to the increasing burden of greenhouse > gases. We have already committed our descendants to many centuries of > sea-level rise. We benefit now from using cheap and abundant fossil fuels, > and we use the atmosphere as a free dump for the waste products. In doing > so, however, we sentence our children and grandchildren to cope with the > resulting climate change. > > I am convinced that a scientific community that aspires to be helpful to > society must include ethics and equity as an integral part of its research > agenda. We should place greater emphasis on providing quantitative > information relevant to the ethical consequences of different policy > options. For example, policymakers urgently need to know how climate change > will affect different regions of the world and different economic sectors. > The coming temperature change labeled "global warming" is simply a symptom > of climate disruption. Research is required to generate specific forecasts > of effects on water supply, on hurricanes and other storms, and on droughts, > floods, and many other phenomena. Consequences for ecosystems and > biodiversity worldwide are among the unknowns. Options and costs of > adaptation to climate change will vary greatly around the globe and among > developed and developing nations, and science has much to contribute to > understanding these factors. > > Incorporating such considerations into international negotiations on climate > change is not fanciful or unrealistic. Indeed, experience in other domains > teaches us that an ethical basis is essential in order to reach effective > solutions. The historical development of the Montreal Protocol and follow-on > agreements to deal with human-caused damage to stratospheric ozone > illustrates clearly the benefits of taking ethics into account. > > Let us recognize the damage we have already done to the climate system and > resolve to minimize the additional damage we threaten to cause in the > future. That is our moral and ethical responsibility to our neighbors on > this small planet, to our descendants, and to all life on Earth. > > POSTED ON 03 Jun 2008 IN > > ABOUT THE AUTHOR > Richard C. J. Somerville, a theoretical meteorologist and expert on computer > atmospheric simulations, is Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps > Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. He was a > coordinating lead author for the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. > > (c) 2008 Yale Environment 360 > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
