The Government's Green Paper outlining its response to climate change has heated debate. It has shown that to reduce carbon emissions will have costs. Groups with much to lose have defended their interests. Critics of the consensus among scientists on human contribution to global warming have gained publicity.
If we are to think out what we and the Government should do in response to climate change, we need a framework in which to set and evaluate the many arguments and considerations that have been raised. That must be a moral framework because the issue is about how we are to live humanly on our planet. To develop such a framework is challenging for four interlocking reasons.
First, we have to base our judgement about what we should do on probability, not on certain knowledge. The arguments that support the consensus view that human activity adds to global warming and so can reduce it are strong, but cannot be absolutely conclusive. So we cannot be absolutely sure that we have identified the causes of global warming or that our actions will be effective. Equally, if we decide to do nothing, we must recognise the strong possibility that our inactivity will lead to catastrophic and avoidable consequences.
Second, the calculation behind action to reduce emissions is that short term-pain will lead to long term-gain. People will forego benefits now in order to protect later generations from greater suffering. Given that our action is based on probability, we shall exchange certain short term-pain for probable long-term gain.
Third, action to reduce emissions cannot be effective unless the major polluting nations commit to it. But it is likely that many nations will commit only if others lead the way. A nation that does commit to cut emissions will suffer certain pain to achieve goals that its actions alone cannot realise.
Fourth, according to the consensus we must act decisively in the near future. We cannot delay acting until we have certain knowledge why global warming is taking place and whether we can check it.
These considerations make ethical reflection on how to respond to climate change very complex. In order to sort through the issues and arguments, our moral framework must give full weight to solidarity and responsibility.
An emphasis on solidarity puts a high value to the relationships that bind each human being to other human beings and to the world. It suggests