A Warming World

James Garvey, Secretary of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, examines the facts which necessitate a

The debate about the existence of human-caused climate change seems finally at an end. If you are in some doubt, have a look at the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [http://www.ipcc.ch/]. I’m happy to discuss scepticism in the comments, but for now consider just the changes apparently already underway and the prospects for us on our warming world. Brace yourself for a few numbers.

The average surface temperature of our planet has increased by about 0.7º C over the twentieth century. That might not seem like much to you, but those who know how to read the bubbles in ice cores tell us that the speed of the change is without precedent over at least the past 10,000 years. As the world heats up, a number of changes have already been set in motion. The average sea level has risen by an annual rate of 2mm since 1960, with the rate increasing to about 3mm towards the end of the century. Sea ice is thinning; permafrost is melting; glaciers are in world-wide retreat; El Nino events are becoming more frequent, persistent and intense; and on and on.

The changes to our planet are already having disastrous effects on the lives of many plants and animals. It’s not just the poster boys for climate change, polar bears and mountain gorillas, which are in danger. According to a report in Nature, anything between 15 to 37 percent of all plant and animal species could be locked into extinction by 2050 as a result of climate change. We know from the fossil record that we are now living through the 6th major extinction event in our planet’s history. The last one did in the dinosaurs.

Human beings, too, are suffering and will continue to suffer. The Red Cross argue that as of 2001 there were as many as 25 million environmental refugees, people on the move away from dry wells and failed crops. It’s larger than the number they give for people made homeless by war. One sixth of the world’s population gets its water from the melting snow and ice tricking down from mountains, a source which looks set to dry up in the years to come. Industry, agriculture and homes on coasts will be adversely affected by the rising sea.

It’s worries associated with human beings which raise moral problems for me. There is a lot of unnecessary human suffering in our future if we do not make certain choices now. Those choices ultimately depend on what we think is right, on justice, on responsibility, on what we value, on what matters to us. You cannot find that sort of thing in an ice core. You have to think your way through it. We’ll make a start on that in the next post.

6 comments

isillitoe's picture

My concern is that 99.9% of the world's population could agree in principle that climate change was morally wrong yet not a lot would necessarily change. Certainly not if people think that they would be fulfilling all of their moral obligations by just remembering to sort out their recycling once a week and turn the bathroom light off when they go to bed.

Considering the dramatic timescales we appear to be talking about, the power to make the kind of changes required to actually have an impact on reversing climate change are probably only available to a tiny fraction of the global population. It goes without saying that those people probably haven't got to where they are by spending time worrying about such moral issues.

So, if people do accept that climate change is morally wrong then how far should they be willing (or morally obliged) to go in order to do something about it?

Alice2's picture

I get the feeling that the only incentive that is going to make a significant imapct will be a financial one, and that one cannot rely on human nature (en mass) to significantly change in the current absence of, to use the American term, 'a clear and present danger', by which I mean one which significantly impacts on the lives of the biggest carbon producers in 'developed' countries at the moment. The other problem is that the poorest in the world will nessecarily choose the financial benefits of, for example, palm oil crops etc over moral philosophy. There is no evidence in history to suggest that we could work together on a global scale ( wasn't the United Nations set up to prevent any more wars.....?), and this to me suggests that we are in fact not worthy of continuing survival and that the Earth is delivering us a mass extiction event (in a non-conscious, feedback loop sort of way) as a consequence of overpopulation by a species, as happens for many species all the time but without the level of awareness on thier parts to be afraid of it.

gnuneo's picture

you may also find that those drying up wells are caused by the disastrous drainage of the continental water tables for modernist monoculture agriculture, which is entirely unsuitable for a world that requires sustainability, as opposed to permaculture agriculture.

(i am not aware of any world that does not require sustainability however, outside of high-modernist economist texts).

how will we as a species face the inevitable consequences of global warming? The answer ATM seems obvious: we will copy the failed strategies that led to the WWs, we will turn to national 'answers' to international problems, and the elites will ramp up their economic theft whilst blaming others (such as immigrants and foreigners) for the problems their thieving cause.

if mankind can actually work together for once, as equals, and sort through our common problems, most of us can still survive the now inevitable problems we will face as a planetary-wide species, however if we do indeed turn back to feudal notions of power and control, we will turn the problems into catastrophes.

will we prove ourselves to be a rational, intelligent species that deserves to survive and continue evolving, or...

time will tell.

jeremylabram's picture

I think there's hope, simply because people like you are thinking well beyond tomorrow.

In the recent book - do good lives have to cost the earth, there is a fascinating chapter from Adair Turner, which I have converted into a diagram for use shortly on my blog (at http://bpvocc.blogspot.com).

On the face of it we are beset with a world growing at 200,000 per day and lusting after a lifestyle which uses extravagant amounts of energy. He argues that there are two tempering influences:

1. the education of women which brings about birth control and population stabilisation
2. all of us waking up to the fact that beyond a recognisable point 'well being' stops improving beyond a certain level of consumption.

James Garvey1's picture

I've got those worries too. One thing that keeps me going is the thought that, at least sometimes, human beings undertake dramatic action, huge social changes, because they think it's the right thing to do. Some examples might occurr to you. Probably what won't help much is thinking about the changes ahead in terms of what's profitable or expedient. What might help is a shift in attitude towards doing the right thing.

James Garvey1's picture

Alice, that's awful, and I've had most of those thoughts too. Maybe we're only acuated by greed or money. Maybe we really are at a kind of crossroads. It could go either way: we might do the right thing or not, and if we don't then maybe we've got it coming, maybe we're not the wonderful things we thought we were. Maybe we deserve to go the way of the dinosaurs.

But I'm not sure you're right when you say that our history does not give us much grounds for hope. Maybe it depends a little on how you pitch it, but human beings do the right thing in the end. We've done some horrible stuff, but the bad guys always fall eventually. Maybe there's a little hope in there worth having, somewhere.

Latest tweets