Climate Change as an Ethical Issue

By Bill Creasy

The public is receiving more information about climate change (also known as global warming, or the greenhouse effect) from the media. Every time there is strange weather, there is a news report that implies that the weather is linked to climate change. (Scientifically, it is virtually impossible to relate a specific weather event to the average climate.) Most people seem to be becoming aware that human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels, could cause large changes in climate within the lifetimes of people who are now alive. The question is, will awareness translate into action?

A rational analysis of climate change from economic or social perspectives seems to indicate that the problem of climate change may be impossible to address. It is a problem on a huge scale, affecting everyone on the planet, but the actions of any one individual seem negligible. The problem requires human cooperation on a scale that has never happened before.

Not only that, there are great incentives for some countries not to cooperate. Industrial development depends on energy consumption. Manufacturing creates jobs and goods to improve people's lives, but it also requires energy that is mainly provided by fossil fuels. If almost every country agreed to cut their energy consumption, there would still be an incentive for individual countries to cheat to improve their industrial competitiveness.

In addition, effects that are caused by climate change could require more energy consumption to remediate the changes. Higher temperatures increase demand for air conditioning. Rising sea levels require construction to protect the shoreline or to relocate people further inland. So human actions could amplify the problem.

From an economic perspective, one would not expect a country to stop using fossil fuel as long as it is cheaper than alternative energy sources. People may keep burning the last bit of fossil fuel, no matter what happens around them, until it is so scarce and expensive that it is not a competitive energy source.

People might not stop buying products that depend on cheap energy. People may not connect global warming to their personal daily routines, like commuting to work. Fuel consumption makes some activities so much more convenient that people won't stop doing them, regardless of warning about dire consequences in a few decades.

These ways of thinking makes it look like the human race can't avoid climate change, with potential (but not yet definite) catastrophic consequences.

It is interesting to note that some groups of people take the problem seriously. I went to a meeting of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network on Nov. 29, 2006, in Baltimore. This nonprofit group is local to Maryland and Virginia, and it is dedicated to addressing global warming effects, specifically in the Chesapeake Bay area. The speakers were Mike Tidwell, Director of CCAN; Dr. Cindy Parker, professor of the Johns Hopkins Univ. School of Public Health; and Brad Heavner, state director of Environment Maryland.

I was surprised that there was a high turnout to the meeting, several hundred people. Several Maryland state delegates attended. Even more surprisingly, there was a cautious optimism about addressing the problem. Climate change was regarded as a real, serious problem that they had to begin addressing soon. Clearly, these people didn't think it's hopeless!

There were a number of reasons that speakers seemed optimistic about the issue and wanted to work on it. The speakers talked about evidence for climate change. But this group didn't raise any questions about the evidence. They agreed that it was definitive and that the climate changes could be devastating. Hurricane Katrina was pointed to as a serious example of the kind of destruction that is possible. Al Gore's video An Inconvenient Truth was often referred to.

There was also no question that the U.S. is the leading contributor, per capita, to carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, the U.S. has responsibility for the problem. But the U.S. may not bear the brunt of the negative effects. As a result, there was a sense of guilt that the U.S. has an obligation beyond purely financial concerns to address the problem, since other people in the world may suffer because of our standard of living.

The speakers emphasized that efforts to address climate change could be cost effective. The major initiative for CCAN will be passage of the automobile fuel efficiency standards in Maryland that are the same as California's. The meeting was concerned with lobbying to pass a Maryland state vehicle emission law. They argued that fuel standards are cost effective, since lower consumption of fuel justifies higher vehicle cost.

The speakers tried to minimize the expectations about goals of the activities. Individuals may seem to make a negligible difference, but every little bit helps. Cutting emissions by small percentages, like 10% or less, still contributes to reducing or delaying problems, and it does our share toward a solution.

I also got the impression that there were other motivations. Climate change gives an excuse to act on issues that are mostly aesthetic in nature. For example, a vehicle emission bill would limit sales of SUVs, which were not admired. (Not surprisingly, the parking lot had a lot of Prius hybrid cars.

Some speakers advocated limiting suburban sprawl. Having people live in areas of higher population density has some advantages. It can encourage mass transit, because more people live near the bus or train stops, so more people may use them rather than driving their cars. If more people use mass transit, there can be more buses or trains that run, improving the convenience. Higher densities also allow more scenic open spaces between towns and less traffic on congested back roads.

Clearly, environmentalists don't have problems with government regulations that would mandate these social requirements. This is a different philosophy from free market advocates or libertarians, who want a maximum personal liberty. The question is, Is climate change a sufficiently important problem that people will accept limiting freedom, particularly people whose lifestyles depend on consuming cheap fuel?

This is a serious ethical problem. It will probably generate more discussion in coming years. WASH members should think about and debate this problem as an ethical issue, so that we can contribute to political approaches to the problem.

This article was published in the February 2007 issue of WASHline, the newsletter of the Washington Area Secular Humanists.