What is it about?
One of the most urgent tasks of geoethics is how to deal with climate change in a just and equitable way. Our current path could at worst lead to multi-meter sea-level rise, increases in storms and climate extremes causing devastating social disruption and economic consequences. I present some alternatives on how to deal with this alarming prospect, arguing that we cannot condense our decision making on climate change to numerical calculations but must make ethical judgements. A mutual debt cancellation developed countries’ carbon debts versus developing countries’ conventional monetary debt would solve past grievances, while unilateral measures to curb climate change would provide examples for others to follow.
Featured Image
Photo by NOAA on Unsplash
Why is it important?
We will never be able to make 100 percent sure calculations on the probability of the effects and costs of different GHG emission trajectories. Thus, we cannot condense our decision making on climate change to a numerical calculation but must make ethical judgements. Despite this lack of information most of the literature on optimal climate change policy is based on expected utility maximation. This can be considered as a gamble on the expense of future generations for the benefit of the current ones. Alternatively, we can choose the maximin principle, which tells us to adopt the alternative which worst outcome is superior to the worst outcomes of the other alternatives, as the decision rule.
Perspectives
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Climate Change, Uncertainty and Ethical Superstorms, January 2021, Springer Science + Business Media,
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-79028-8_12.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page