Gardiner

Question 1

5 climate change issues

Answer 1

1. scientific uncertainty
2. responsibility for past emissions
3. setting of mitigation targets
4. adaptation to world with changed climate
5. geo-engineering as an abatement strategy

Question 2

3 challenges related to uncertainty

Answer 2

1. the science is just not certain enough about the impacts of climate change
2. precautionary principle is too broad
3. costs of acting now for the future are too great

Question 3

1st challenge to uncertainty: impacts

Answer 3

Distinguish two types of ignorance:

1. Risk: the probabilities are known (determined by experts)
2. uncertainty: no reliable probabilities

Question 4

Deciding to act under uncertainty

Answer 4

• “many important life decisions come without good probability information”
• how much certainty do we need for these ordinary decisions

Question 5

Precautionary principle

Answer 5

“when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established by science

Question 6

Criteria for the application of precautionary principle

Answer 6

1. uncertain situation (lack many prob.)
2. Don’t care for big gains above a safe margin
3. unsafe margin = unacceptable outcomes

Question 7

unsafe margin = unacceptable outcomes

Answer 7

1. would you accept precaution if you did not know what harmful thing might happen to YOU?
2. veil of ignorance (Rawls)

Question 8

Care little for gains (at great risk)

Answer 8

1. consider the issues

2. cutting purely luxury goods for two years to avoid catastrophic climate change and secure decent quality of life

Question 9

3rd challenge: costs of cut now

Answer 9

1. discount future?
2. response: need more debate about our ethical obligations to the future generations
3. can’t just “ask the economists” (677)
4. lets talk about moral principles that obligate us to non-existent future people

Question 10

Who has the strongest obligation to take action?

- polluter pays principle version 1

Answer 10

• clean up your mess, developed countries!
• if A has engaged in activities that have diminished the basic well-being of B, then A has an obligation to stop the damaging activities and repair the damage done to B

Question 11

Polluter pays version 2

Answer 11

Do not use up the common shares of others, developed countries (677)

• if A has used up common resources to which B have a right, then A has an obligation to restore those common resources to B
• if they cannot be restored, A should compensate B for overuse

Question 12

Objection 1 to responsibility/past argument and response

Answer 12

Objection: Past polluters were ignorant
Response: Distinguish blame from responsibility (pizza example 678)
- if you broke in ignorance, you are still responsible. Do not ignorantly deprive something a person has a right to (678)

Question 13

Objection 2 and response

Answer 13

Objection: latecomers don’t have a right, they did not already pay for the benefits. First come first serve
Response: if early comers assumed resource limited, that is not fair - if early comers assumed the resource was unlimited, not fair either (responsible for error 678)

Question 14

Objection 3 and response

Answer 14

Objection: we (in the developed world) are not responsible for the pollution
Response: polluter pays applies to countries, not individuals (679)

Question 15

Counter-argument to reply 3 and reply to counter

Answer 15

Counter-argument: strong individualism
-only individual people have obligations, not countries
-individuals only have obligations to rectify wrongs they have committed
Response: would one accept this for certain benefits like inheritance? (679) be consistent

Question 16

Objection 4 and response

Answer 16

Objection: impractical
Response: don’t be so quick

Question 17

How should emissions be allocated across the globe? (680)

Answer 17

1. equal per capita (by person)
2. right to minimum quality of life
3. everyone should reduce by a certain percentage

Question 18

Equal per capita

Answer 18

• Set a level of emissions acceptable, everyone cuts or raises to reach that number!
• What about a country like Canada?!
• Big implications for the U.S. (80 percent cut).

Question 19

What about equal per capita plus right to trade pollution?

Answer 19

• How workable?

- Wouldn’t it preserve the dominance of the rich? Buy off the poor! (p. 681).

Question 20

Answer #2: right to minimum quality of life

Answer 20

• Everyone has a right to “subsistence emissions.”
• How do you define that? (681).
• How different than answer #1?

Question 21

Everyone should reduce by a certain emissions percentage. All take on equal burdens (682).

Answer 21

• How fair is this? 20 percent reductions easier in wealthy countries.
• This answer is somewhat close to the Paris agreement. Discuss.

Question 22

Impacts: Adapting (1)

Answer 22

Don’t waste time reducing/abating GHG, figure out how to adapt to a new world!
- Better to help the poor adapt now than their future descendants. They are more poor, and more easily helped (683).

Question 23

Impacts: Adapting (2)

Answer 23

Summarizing the main problems:

• Let’s adapt and mitigate.
• Is it fair to the future poor? What did they do?

Question 24

Adaptation vs. Abatement

Answer 24

Is it easier to adapt to climate change impacts than to adapt to economic restrictions on emissions? Big question! (684).

Question 25

Geoengineering: argument 1

Answer 25

cost effective way to buy time

- but risks

Question 26

Geoengineering: argument 2

Answer 26

how about research only?

-can you contain it to research?

Question 27

Geoengineering: argument 3

Answer 27

lesser of 2 evils. “Arm the future.”

- can’t we arm the future in other ways–green energy?

Question 28

Arguments Against Over-Reliance on Geo-Engineering

Answer 28

Risk

Arrogance (686)

Question 29

The Morality of Imposing Threats

Answer 29

• Weighing benefits/burdens/risks.
• A seeks benefits in ignorance of possible harms to others A, B, C . . . .
• In these cases, it matters whether A’s ignorance reflects irresponsibility. Could A have remedied ignorance?