Return to: Home | Blogs | The Faith Column

Climate change and the past

Are we hostage to the environmental crimes of our grandparents?

Finding your way into the ethics of climate change isn’t easy. Our values; human values, grew up in little, local, tribal worlds of plenty. But climate change requires thinking on a much different scale. It’s easy to see that someone shoplifting a bottle of tequila does wrong. There’s a thief, standing red-handed right in front of you. But who does wrong in the case of climate change? Is overfilling the kettle wrong? Is a long, hot shower a sin? Is a long-haul flight for a well-deserved weekend break a kind of evil? We can make a start by thinking about climate change and the past, present, and future. We’ll begin with historical thoughts on responsibility, with reflection on the history of emissions.

Sometimes the history of the present distribution of resources matters. Suppose each day we all take an equal share of the limited amount of water which bubbles up from a common well. It turns out that I’ve been sneaking a bit more for my Jacuzzi. You might reflect on compensatory or corrective justice issues, in the thought that I should now take less water, to make up for my past excesses. Think now about the developed world’s historical use of a scarce resource, namely the carbon-absorbing properties of our planet, the Earth’s carbon sinks. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization categorizes countries as developed or developing. If we follow these groupings, then since 1850 the developed world is responsible for 76 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions. It has therefore used up a vastly disproportionate share of the planet’s carbon sinks. It doesn’t take much thinking about corrective justice to come to the conclusion that the developed world has a responsibility to take serious action on climate change. It was easy enough to see it in the case of the well.

Several thoughts get in the way of seeing this conclusion clearly. Maybe the most common one goes like this. Perhaps the past sometimes matters when we think about divvying up a scarce resource, but we are talking about the actions of people long dead. Maybe the activities of my parents and grandparents and so on conspired together to bring about climate change, but I didn’t do it. Saying now that I must tighten my belt because of a past injustice is nothing less than holding me responsible for the sins of my father.

We might be able to get away with that thought if it were true that our lives were entirely disconnected from the industrial activities of our forebears. However, as the philosopher Henry Shue points out, we owe the comfy lives we’ve got to all that past industrial activity. We in the west – with comparatively excellent health care and education, with nations bolstered by a sturdy infrastructure and healthy economies – are enjoying lives of plenty partly because of our histories. We’ve benefited from industrialization, and others will suffer for it as our climate changes. Do we not owe those who will suffer a few sea walls and the promise to reign in our emissions as quickly as we possibly can?

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

5 comments from readers

DrColes
09 January 2008 at 16:52

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.

http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz

James Garvey
10 January 2008 at 11:05

I do know that some dispute the claims of the IPCC, and I won’t go in for mud-slinging about the source in the link above. I also don’t have the time to check each source and claim. If you have a look at the link above, maybe you wonder what’s on the other side, namely, who thinks the reports of the IPCC are sound.

Lots of scientific bodies have put their weight behind the reports of the IPCC. Among them, Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Academié des Sciences, Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Sciences, The Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, Australian Academy of Sciences, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, National Center for Atmospheric Research, American Meteorological Society, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society.

Readers might also find this link of interest:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref...

The best thing you can do if you are to-ing and fro-ing about the existence of anthropogenic climate change is to have a look at the science yourself and make up your own mind. I suggest the IPCC’s AR4 Synthesis Report, Working Group 1, ‘The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policy Makers’ (http://www.ipcc.ch/). The best book I’ve found on the subject is John Houghton’s ‘Global Warming: the complete briefing’. It’s not that complicated. Even I get it.

isillitoe
10 January 2008 at 11:52

Wow. Of all the scientists across the world involved in this document you could only find 400 that dispute certain sections of the case for man-made climate change?

Anyone who has even the smallest experience of getting an enormously large group of people, let alone scientists (I know, I am one), to agree on the exact wording of a document of this scale would see this as a solid endorsement of the document rather than a stinging rebuke.

AndyHolland
10 January 2008 at 16:56

In your first article, you said that the debate about the existance of human-caused climate change seems finally at an end. The contribution from DrColes shows that this is not the case. Although the scientific evidence is overwhelming, a deliberate attempt to cloud the debate has been conducted by Exxon Mobile over the last ten years (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-e...).

Their actions have led to significant numbers of people doubting whether global warming is occuring, or if it is, whether CO2 emissions have anything to do with it, or if the have, whether man has any responsibility for the emissions. Any one with enough time and scientific understanding can see that it is occurring and that humans are responsible, but a lot of people don't look into it, and don't really understand the arguments.

This complicates the argument. The developed world does have the responsibility and greatest ability to address the problem, but if a significant number of people don't trust the science, how can you convince them that they have a responsibility to do anything.

James Garvey
11 January 2008 at 16:25

Ideally, we convince people in the old fashioned way, by showing them the facts and letting them make up their own minds. It might turn out, though, that the urgency of action undercuts this course. Depending upon how close we're cutting it, the thing to do might be to convince policy makers and others on the ground whose decisions matter -- we might have to put off convincing everyone else.

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

After the truth

29 May 2009 10:09

Islam's young faithful

18 May 2009 17:33

The Pilgrim Pope

14 May 2009 10:53

Technology, the Latter-day way

12 May 2009 09:45

The Age of the E-church

07 May 2009 12:43

Christianity and the Petri dish

06 May 2009 11:48

Judaism and charity

30 April 2009 16:07

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Vote!

Should we build new nuclear power plants?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker