Climate Change, life and death

Professor John Broome, of the University of Oxford and author of “Climate Matters”, delivered the Royal Institute of Philosophy lecture at York University this week.

His is a philosophical approach to climate change. How is that relevant? The United Nations Framework on Climate Change sets out to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” To achieve this it needs to:

1. Identify the level of emission concentration in the atmosphere low enough to prevent dangerous interference
2. Define acceptable global annual emissions
3. Allocate these annual emissions fairly  among nations

Moral philosophers are involved in stage 3, but stages 1 and 2 are decided by scientists, economists and politicians. Professor Broome disagrees with this because value judgements are involved at all three stages and he doesn’t believe that scientists, economists and politicians are much good at making such judgements. He is concerned that the UN Framework on Climate Change suggests that decisions on what constitutes dangerous climate change are value judgements and should be “determined through socio-political processes.” He doesn’t think the result of this process can be readily supported. The IPCC has set a target of a maximum emission of 1 trillion tonnes because that gives a better than 2/3 chance of keeping global warming below 2°C. Why 2/3? Why 2°C?

Professor Broome believes that decisions should be made on expected values, not on likelihood. For example, the likelihood of the average house burning down is very small but the consequences are likely to be very serious. Because of the value of the catastrophe, it makes sense to buy a fire extinguisher.

How can we evaluate the harms and benefits of climate change? People are already dying as the result of climate change. The effects of weather are significant, leading in turn to poverty, malnutrition and disease. The fact that people die as a result of climate change is negative in itself, but as a consequence of their deaths there are fewer descendants and future generations are smaller, even to the extent that human extinction becomes an increasing possibility. The effect of climate change on the population - and vice versa - is largely ignored by governments. Some argue that changes in population levels are ethically neutral: Broome challenges this, but admits that we have no consensus on how to take these changes into account. The population elephant remains in the room.

Questions at the end of the session drew the comment that being nice is not good enough. We need to promote green virtues, but there are not enough virtuous people, so the only answer is government coercion. 

One questioner suggested that burning all the fossil fuel reserves in the world would not have serious consequences. He couldn’t quote supporting figures. Professor Broome disagreed but could not provide opposing figures and neither could I. However, it’s all here: 

http://eye.carbontracker.org/analysis-reports/view?analysisReportId=15552

Enough is Enough

Last month I attended the launch of Enough is Enough by Dietz and O'Neill, founding members of CASSE, the Centre for the Advancement of the Steady-State Economy. 

Everyone should read this book. The authors quote Kenneth Boulding, “Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever is either a madman or an economist,” and go on to explain in detail why this is true. Of course this story has been told many times before, in An Inconvenient Truth and The Age of Stupid among many others. An Inconvenient Truth tucked its recommendations for action away among the closing credits while The Age of Stupid was a festival of hand-wringing over what went wrong. Where Enough is Enough scores is that after describing the present situation it constantly asks “What could we do differently?” and “Where do we go from here?” Most of the answers are very sensible, although I do take issue with their idea of lowering productivity to provide more jobs. Why not increase productivity and provide more leisure? But that’s a debate for another time.

The key issue, of course, is to get enough people to realise that we need fundamental change and to support that change. Maybe we’ll get to that tipping point, but the problem is that too many people have too much to lose if they step away from the present system.

The book is full of cartoons and many of them cheapen its image. They give the impression that the cause of all the world’s problems is cynical and corrupt capitalists. It isn’t nearly as simple as that. There are signs that some business leaders are beginning to get the message, and pitting one section of the community against another is not only no solution, it’s a waste of the very limited time we have to get things under control. 

There’s much to be done. Enough is Enough is a useful route map.