With Copenhagen looming, I’m doing a lot of thinking about the moral demand for action on climate change. I wrote something about it here, saying that ethics should sometimes trump economics (Copenhagen is an opportunity for ethics to trump economics). It’s not as rigorous as a philosophy paper, but I think it makes a serious point. In the comments, you’ll see that a lot of people object to the claim that the West has to act regardless of what others do. It’s a strong claim, but maybe I really do think it’s true. Moral obligations click in, and you have to do the right thing whether others do it or not. There’s a pragmatic point to make — perhaps that’s at the heart of the objections – but I think it should be disentangled from the moral case.
Anyway, if you want to bring some philosophical argumentation to bear, the comments section will be open there for about a day or so. Otherwise, wade in here. I really am curious about the right way to think about this.
I think its important to remember that the economic success that the west and other industrialized nations have experienced in the past has been heavily subsidized by environmental costs…
But as all subsidies, the cost has to be paid from somewhere, be it taxpayers, or in this case, other living creatures and ourselves that depend upon the environment. This includes the third world which must live with our environmental pollution. Increasingly, our pollution is outsourced to third world, toxifying their environment so that we can have our electronic gadgets and such that we treat as disposable. This is as unsustainable as slavery.
Too bad Copenhagen is about climate change and not pollution. Reduced pollution is an unintended consequesnce of emissions reductions. Since the Us climate bill is about climate change then it likley won’t pass anytime soon. The public does not believe the climate scare anymore. On the other hand, had the climate bill been focused on reducing pollution then it would already have been passed. Too bad. Just dump the Cap&Trade componant of the bill and this would be done already.
Maybe the way to think about the problem of ethics over economy (or vice versa) is through altruism. Will unilateral action to improve global climate conditions lead a nation (hemisphere, continent) to economic ruin for the good of the rest of the planet? The only reason to take an action like that would be to set an example on the risky supposition that the rest of the global community will follow your lead. But will this unilateral action be worth the sacrifice if it remains unilateral? Or will it look like the ultimate act of altruism, throwing yourself on a live grenade to save your buddies.
Justapedn et al: There’s a difference between doing something because you have an obligation to do it and doing something for the likely consequences.
Suppose I think I should keep my promises because I’m a stand up guy. But I’m in an environment where some people break promises when it’s to their advantage. Does their breaking promises do anything to my thought that I ought to keep mine?
On one hand, no it doesn’t if, say, I think promise-keeping is an obligation, if I really want to be a stand up guy, damn the consequences. But on the other, maybe if I think about getting ahead or whatever, maybe I’m not such a stand up guy and I want some cash. Then the behaviour of others nudges me away from my obligations.
I’m trying to push for the former in the case of climate change — ethics as a way out of commons problems. Imagine Bonnie and Clyde as prisoners in the prisoners dilemma. Clyde would never squeal — he loved Bonnie. Sometimes other values have to trump bare rational calculation. Maybe that sort of thing is what we need if we are to get an agreement in Copenhagen.
I agree with James’ example of Bonnie and Clyde: basically what you are talking about is trust. If the international community trusted the other members more then someone would make the first move without being afraid of that the others will freeride.
I would even argue that you only need a small group of nations to commit to carbon pollution reduction, maybe 5 including 1 or 2 big emitters, to encourage the other nations to agree as well. I think that there are a large number of nations looking for leadership on this topic.