Climate change

(Bold is what Wouter says- non- bold is powerpoint- still don’t think can copy exactly
what W said?)

N.B- https://data.worldbank.org- GOOD WEBSITE FOR ANY DATA NEEDED

Lecture 1:
Climate change in the Anthropocene:
• Situate climate change within the broader context of environmental Unsustainability
in the Anthropocene
• Discuss how the climate is regulated
• Discuss the re-surfacing climate change denial and scepticism

Note:
• Epoch means a particular period of time in history or in a person’s life
(definition from google)
• Anthropocene is a proposed geological epoch used to describe the most recent
period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant
impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems (definition from google)

Main ideas in this lecture

1. The Anthropocene and a safe operating space for humanity
2. Climate change scepticism
3. Climate regulation

Introduction:
• Need to know basics to form ethical judgments e.g. global warming is caused by
human emission of greenhouse gases- can’t think it’s only due to solar energy as
would come to wrong ethical judgements about global warming.
• We will go broader than climate change- will also look at unsustainable behaviour in
general.

The Anthropocene and a Safe Operating Space for Humanity:

This part contextualises climate change within the broader context of humanity's general
impact on the natural environment, which is clearly unsustainable.
• ANTHROPOCENE= Two parts to term- anthropo (anything to do with humans)
and cene (refers to a geological error) Humans are the main driver of global and
environmental change.
• SAFE OPERATING SPACE FOR HUMANITY= a concept created by a group
of climate scientists who have determined some limits for human activity and if
we remain within those limits than we live in environmental sustainability- our
impact on environment wouldn’t be big enough to cause environmental
problems.

The Anthropocene: A new geological epoch

 • According to geologists the past 12,000 years have been an epoch of
environmental stability- called the Holocene. Human life was able to flourish,
and we have been able to build our societies as we know them today.
• Without human pressure, the Holocene is expected to continue for at least several
thousands of years.
• People believe we are now entering the Anthropocene as human actions have
become the main river of global environmental change. These human actions have
become unsustainable
• Could push Earth System outside the state of the Holocene state, with consequences
that are detrimental or catastrophically for large parts of the world.
• Crutzen & Stoermer (scientists who have first coined the term Anthropocene-
trying to emphasise that we have the daunting task to reduce our environmental
impact on the world and make sure its sustainable) Daunting task to guide
mankind towards sustainable, environmental management. (look at seminar notes)

The concept of the Anthropocene:

• Looks like a geological concept but could argue it is actually a political and social
concept

Onset:
• Early human impacts
• Industrial Revolution (1784): start of burning fossil fuels- when steam engine was
invented- rather arbitrary as coal was burnt throughout middle ages in houses so
was already greenhouse gases in the atmosphere- scale of problem was much
smaller though and during industrial revolution made it worse.
• Some scientists say they see early human impacts dating back 5000 to 7000 years
ago- maybe that’s when Anthropocene started rather than 200 years ago.
• Some other scientists say Anthropocene started only after second world war-
population has grown exponentially and global economy has also grown
exponentially. Post-war ‘Great Acceleration’: enhanced population and economic
growth

Biermann (2015): Political concept:

• Says we should look at it as a political concept- saying we are interdependent,
living on one globe- internationally and intergenerationally we are
interdependent.
• Relations of interdependence between nations and between generations
• Uncertainty about causes and impacts of Earth System transformation
• Extreme variations in wealth, health, living standards, education- we all live on same
planet, but we are also extremely diverse in terms of wealth etc. e.g compare UK
education to that of Somalia for e.g but how we want to come to a sustainable
planet depends on our collaboration together which is problematic due to our
differences.

A Safe Operating Space for Humanity

Update Steffen et al. 2015:
• Published in 2009 in journal ‘nature’ led by
Rogstrom? And Steffen has posted an update in
2015 to reflect more knowledge than 2009.
 • There are a number of variables when talking about global and environmental
change and they are determined how far we can push those variables without
becoming unsustainable. E.g fresh water use there is a limit to the amount of
fresh water can use- not only using rain water but also depleting ground water in
large parts of the world- according to update in 2015 we are still in green are so
haven’t transgressed boundary yet. There is a boundary- ground water
resources very deep in soil that aren’t renewable so once we have depleted them
they cannot be renewed- this has consequences for global environment.
• 3 or 4 main variables that are coming into trouble 1) biogeochemical flows
(nitrogen and phosphorus- mainly to do with too much fertiliser in agriculture)
2) biosphere integrity (will come back to this) 3) climate change (we are in
orange atm so coming into danger zone)

Raworth (2012): Doughnut economics:

• Recently Raworth (an economist)- discusses Safe
Operating Space for Humanity in accordance with
the economy
• She says that we should not look for economical
growth as the measure of progress of our societies-
have to look at doughnuts- middle of doughnut is
determined by basic human rights or needs e.g
having enough energy, food, water etc. Outer of
doughnuts is determined by environmental limits.
• The goal for her is that we should all live on top of
doughnut- having basic needs without transgressing
the environmental limits of the Safe Operating Space
for Humanity.

Biodiversity loss: refers to all kinds of animals and plants

a very large environmental problem- might become more urgent than climate change at
the moment
WWF (living planet report 2018):
• 60% overall decline of biodiversity between 1970 and 2012
• Its so significant that Elizabeth Kolbert calls it the sixth extinction in her new
book.
Main threats: All threats are human induced
• Habitat loss and degradation
• Species overexploitation
• Pollution
• Invasive species and disease
• Climate change
IPBES 2019: international panel on biodiversity and ecosystems
Published landmark report- major report
• 25% of species are threatened with global
extinction by human actions
• 1 million species already face extinction
(many will be extinguished within decades)

Defining boundaries = ethical issue:

On top of climate change there is other global environmental problems that are
captures by Safe Operating Space…
ETHICAL, POLTICAL AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS RATHER THAN PURELY
SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS:
Boundaries cannot be determined in isolation from:
• Normative factors: assumptions about risk, what to sustain, … (do we want to
sustain a certain species of animals?)
• Trade-offs with socio-economic objectives
• Other political factors: global context of large inequalities (large differences
in wealth for examples)
For example: “Dangerous” climate change
• Was introduced on international meeting in Copenhagen in 2009
• Copenhagen 2009: politicians have determined dangerous CC as 2°C above
pre-industrial temperature- objective is to keep global warming below 2
degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures otherwise would see
dangerous climate change.
• Paris agreement in 2015: reaffirms the 2°C boundary, but also 1.5°C-
because we see that even below 2 degrees there is large impact on climate
change e.g small island states in south pacific have been pushing for 1.5
degrees as they see that due to sea level rise they are losing their territory.
2 degrees is too high or they will lose their land completely.
• In each case, arbitrary:
• Increasingly unrealistic
• Impacts on humans and nature below
1.5°C or 2°C

Tipping points:
• Science says 2 degress Celsius makes some sense as
at this temp we will reach some tipping points e.g
sea ice in Greenland will be reduced to a level
meaning there won’t be a build-up in winter.
• Lenton (2019)
• Important to determine
political ”dangerous”
climate change
• However, also climate
change below tipping
points
Flanders and the Netherlands after 2°C warming:

• Example of impact below 2 degrees/1.5 degrees Celsius

• If we allow global warming to reach 2 degrees warming and we don’t take any
action, then large parts of Netherlands and Flanders will be submerged in the
sea. Up to 10 million people will have to relocate unless we build infrastructure
to combat sea level rise.

EXTRA STUFF FOR ESSAY

• The consequences of climate change and global environmental problems are felt
unequally throughout the world. For more case studies and analysis regarding
environmental injustice, see The Guardian's series on Our Unequal Earth (Links to an
external site.).
• More about biodiversity loss, its drivers, and why we should care-
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/ptr/departments/philosophy/news/2020/world-
environment-day.aspx- article by Wouter

CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICISM

• As you probably already know, climate change skepticism is still rampant in the
public discourse, especially with public figures such as Donald Trump, Jair
Bolsonaro, Michael Gove and Nicholas Sarkozy having expressed climate change
skepticism in the past.
• However, we don't like to spend too much time on it, because climate science is well-
established, there is an overwhelming consensus that human activity is causing
climate change.
• The video below contains an interview with Neil de Grasse Tyson, a famous
American scientist who has done a lot to popularise science. (*PS: You should also
know that unfortunately, Neil de Grasse Tyson has been critical about the humanities
 (and especially philosophy) in the past. Still, he says some interesting things in the
interview. )
• He talks about the consensus on climate change, and how climate change skeptics
cherry-pick the science.
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
time_continue=188&v=y1MZ8U8C9c8&feature=emb_logo
A couple of comments:
• They cherry pick one scientific result or another- can find a scientific paper that
says practically anything.
• An emergent scientific truth- to become an objective truth requires more than
one scientific paper- that’s what we have with human induced climate change- if
you want to find 1% of papers that conflict with it and build policies on that is
ridiculous.
• At 2'33" he talks about the fact that scientists are not fighting over the settled science,
but only over 'the bleeding edge of what is not yet known.' In climate change, the
settled science is that human activity (and especially emission of greenhouse gases)
are causing global warming. There is still uncertainty about some of the processes
involved or the consequences (the 'bleeding edge'), for example how much
exactly global warming worsens hurricanes. However, the fact that climate change
does increase the intensity and frequency of hurricanes, and that humans are causing
this, is settled science
• At 3'15" he talks about rain and a hurricane. The interview was recorded in September
2017, when Hurricane Irma devastated large parts of the Caribbean and Florida. Irma
went on record as one of the most catastrophic hurricanes ever, and we have been
seeing more of these intense hurricanes in the past decades as a consequence of global
warming
• At 4'15" he mentions that 'nothing gets done' when politicians argue about the science.
Merten has made a similar argument in the context of fake news: we need a common
lifeworld - facts on which we agree - to build policies. Fake news and climate change
denialism erodes this common lifeworld, and nothing gets done. For example, to halt
climate change, left-wing people would favour putting a tax on the use of fossil fuels,
while economically conservative people would like to introduce a system of
emissions trading. We can disagree on this, but both sides agree that climate change is
happening and that we have to do something about it.
• Should be arguing about what is the correct response to the issue not whether
the issue is there in the first place.
• He worries that we may not be able to recover from this- all of our greatest cities
are on the edge of water- as storms kick in and as water levels rise they are the
first to go- can’t pick them up and move them inland 20 miles- happening faster
than our ability to respond- can have huge economic consequences.

CLIMATE REGULATION
Main part of the session
The process that regulates the climate and how we are disturbing that process
Overview: (not that important to understand just good to know)
Global energy flows:
• The warmth and heat coming from sun, some is absorbed by atmosphere and
some will be absorbed by surface- other parts will be reflected back by surface or
clouds back into space
• Some energy absorbed by surface will be
radiated back into atmosphere as infrared
surface radiation.
• In order for the climate to be stable this in
coming and out coming energy flow should be
in balance-we as human beings are disturbing
this balance as we are putting much more
gases that absorb heat into the atmosphere-
much more surface radiation gets trapped in
the atmosphere which causes global warming
Elements of climate regulation system:
• main three elements/factors involved are
• 1) solar energy influx (energy coming from sun to earth)
• 2) chemistry of the atmosphere (the gases which absorb heat)- most important
element
• 3) albedo effect (reflection of certain elements e.g clouds/surfaces that reflect
energy back into space)
Solar energy influx:
• Milankovitch-cycles- these cycles have been responsible for initial distinction
between ice age and inter ice age.
• Three main factors that means the solar energy influx is not the same- not the
same amount of energy comes from the sun to earth throughout history- would
be case if orbit around sun if perfect circle- its an ellipse- at point farthest from
sun the earth would receive less energy.
• Another factor is the obliquity- the axis of the earth on its orbit is tilted a bit-
that tilt fluctuates between 22.5 and 24.5 degress Celsius
• Also precession- trend in the direction of Earth’s rotation axis

Albedo effect:
• Want a high albedo effect- the higher the albedo the Earth is
more reflective so more radiation is returned to space and the
planet cools (from google)
2 main elements which have an albedo effect 1) surface 2) clouds
Surface:
 • Greenland Ice Sheet, Antartic Ice Sheet- global warming will melt ice sheets
• Glaciers, snow
• Oceans- blue so albedo effect will be smaller- white means more albedo effect
• Deserts
• Land use change: deforestation- trees in the tropical regions because leaves in dark
green, their albedo effect is not that large- but if we cut those trees we expose the
bare soil and this has a bigger albedo effect- so would be better in this respect to
cut down all trees to increase albedo effect- this small benefit is cancelled out
entirely by the fact that if we cut down trees the carbon that they have stored
will be released back into the atmosphere which will cause global warming.
Clouds:
• Cooling effect: solar energy reflected by white clouds- especially white surface area
on top of clouds reflect energy back into space
Warming effect:
• Water vapour retains heat- clouds also have warming effect- they are made of
water vapour which is a greenhouse gas- has ability to retain heat
• Clouds trap surface radiation- so won’t reach space
• So to some extent more clouds there is the larger the warming effect- but also
difficult to work out whether the albedo effect is larger than warming effect of
clouds- lots of uncertainty about a couple of factors.
Remaining uncertainty:
• Air pollution- results in clouds being darker- their albedo effect will therefore be
smaller
• Surface over which clouds are formed- e.g is clouds are formed over ocean or
above forest then these clouds might enhance the overall albedo effect- but if
formed over ice masses then it might decrease overall albedo effect as ice might
be white and brighter than the clouds above them.
• Clouds are short-lived

Atmospheric chemistry (chemistry of the atmosphere):

• 3rd element and this is most important element of
climate regulation system- gases that are a part of
the atmosphere and have capacity to absorb heat.
• Some of the energy coming from sun will be
trapped in atmosphere due to these greenhouse
gases and some of the energy being radiated back
to sun will also be trapped in atmosphere due to
gases- called greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect:
• Important to note- we need the greenhouse effect
to some extent- to have a hospitable climate for
humans- earth would be gigantic ball of ice
travelling through space not being able to
support human life- Essential for hospitable
climate
• Natural GHGs- water vapour, ozone, naturally
occurring carbon dioxide
However:
• Relies on balance between sources and sinks of
GHGs- in order for there to be a stable climate has to be balance between the
 sources of the greenhouse gases and the elements in the earths environment that
capture greenhouse gases.
• Humans are disturbing this balance- resulting in global warming

Atmospheric chemistry- Greenhouse gases:

Short lived:
• H2O = water vapour- rains down quite quickly- so short lived
• O3 = ozone- will break down and form again within 90 minutes- so capacity of
ozone to absorb heat from sun is limited to these 90 minutes.
• These are both short-lived and naturally occurring GG

Long-lived greenhouse gases- they are anthropogenic (human induced)- these are the
main problem
• CO2 = carbon dioxide- most important one- in second graph most of greenhouse
gases in atmosphere are carbon dioxides by far- blue colour in second graph
• CH4 = methane- second most important- light green in second graph- less methane
but more potent than carbon dioxide
• N2O = nitrous oxide
• CFCs = chlorofluorocarbon- only one that is anthropogenic
• SF6 = sulphur hexafluoride
• These are naturally occurred as well- e.g methane (when you fart you emit
methane) e.g Carbon dioxide is emitted when trees decompose
• Important to note they are very tiny
proportion of the gases in the atmosphere-
most important greenhouse gas (co2) is only
0.04% of the gases in the atmosphere (graph 1)

Atmospheric chemistry- Carbon cycle:

• There is balance in the atmosphere between
the sinks (things that capture carbon and GG)
and sources (things that emit carbon and GG)

Sinks:
Natural sinks: most important
• Hydrosphere (oceans):
Solubility pump
Biological pump (Photosynthesis) (Carbonate pump-some marine life will take the
carbon molecules to build their shells e.g shellfish/crabs)
• Biosphere: photosynthesis
• Pedosphere (soils):
• Organic waste
• Plant roots
• Cryosphere: permafrost
• Lithosphere: fossil fuels
• Atmosphere
Anthropogenic sinks:
• Landfills- if you throw away plastic waste and that gets buried under soil- the
carbon that makes up that waste will be trapped below the surface of the earth
• Carbon capture and storage- we will come back to this- a way to capture carbon in
the atmosphere- still problematic but if we manage to do this would become an
important sink of GG.

Sources:
Natural sources:
• Ocean-atmosphere exchange
• Plant and animal respiration
• Soil respiration and decomposition
• Volcanic eruptions

Anthropogenic sources:
• Fossil fuel combustion- most important anthropogenic
source
• Land use change
• Industrial processes

Lecture 2:
Anthropogenic interference with the climate system and the impacts
thereof

Overview:
1. Anthropogenic interference with the climate system
2. Some (recent) physical impacts
3. The attribution problem (+ online video with James Hansen)
4. Key human rights under threat (with Caney 2010)
5. Some critical reflections on the human rights framework

Session 1 recap:
The Anthropocene and A Safe Operating Space for Humanity
• The fact that human activity is going outside its limits of sustainability- outside
stable state of Holocene and we have now entered Anthropocene.
 Climate regulation:
• Solar energy influx- energy coming from sun to earth
• Albedo- reflection of the energy back into space
• Chemistry of the atmosphere

• Human activity is heavily influencing this by disturbing the carbon cycle- the balance
between sources of greenhouse gases and their sinks- This in turn results in many
more greenhouse gases remaining in the atmosphere, where they absorb and disperse
solar energy, thus warming the atmosphere.
• Mainly: emissions of GHGs, But also destruction or degradation of sinks (e.g.
deforestation)

Observed global warming:

IPCC- intergovernmental panel on climate change- huge body of scientists who come
together periodically to assess the climate science that has been published since the last
report. 2013 was last major report- 5th assessment report. In 2022 he thinks they will
publish 6th assessment report.
• IPCC (2018), NASA (2020): +1°C above pre-industrial temperature
• IPCC (2013, 4): Warming of the climate system is unequivocal- important quote a
IPCC to some extent is a political body aswell- provide summaries which are
influenced by politicians. Unequivocal is strong word- evidence is 100%- no
shadow of a doubt about it any longer.
NOAA (2020): (national oceanic and atmospheric administration of the USA)- done
a lot of research about climate change- website will have relevant info)
• 2016 and 2019 are two hottest years on record
• 9/10 warmest years occurred since 2005; 5 warmest years occurred since 2015

Predicted global warming:

• Predicted global warming that
will occur in 2100- we are
where black line stops
• If we don’t do anything the
climate will warm by 4.1-4.8
degrees- grey line
• Blue line is current policies-
what we are doing now- will
result in 2.8-3.2 degrees
• Even most optimistic
estimations talk about 2.8
degrees Celsius by 2100.
• Shows we have a lot to do to combat climate change

Drivers of global warming:

Natural drivers:
Two main factors are identified:
 • Natural variables (solar radiation changes and volcanic eruptions): would cause
warming of between -0.1°C - +0.1°C- basically almost 0- the effect of natural
variables if negligible.
• Internal variability: -0.1°C - +0.1°C- also negligible
Anthropogenic drivers:
• All down to human induced global warming
• Other anthropogenic interference (aerosol, land use and ozone changes): interval
between -0.6°C - +0.1°C
• GHG increases: +0.5°C - +1.3°C- GREENHOUSE GASES are the most
responsible driver

Anthropogenic GHG emissions:

IPCC 2013 (p. 17):
• It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the
observed warming since the mid-20th century- think this is a quote
• The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to
the observed warming over this period- also think this is a wuote
• ICPP equates warming to human induced warming- rendering natural
drivers as completely irrelevant.
CO2 concentrations in parts per million:
• Pre-industrial: ca. 280 ppm
• May 2013: 400 ppm
• August 2020: 412 ppm
“Dangerous” climate change:
• 2°C warming = 450 ppm in 2100
• 1.5°C warming = 350 ppm in 2100
• BAU (business as usual- if we didn’t do anything or don’t do anything) =
>720 ppm

Emissions per country/region:

• Top 3 emitting regions= China, US and Eu28 (European Union)
• China has 1.3 billion people? - in total largest emitter of GG but looking at
tonnes per capita they are at 7.5 which is lower than US- higher than European
Union
• World average is around 5 tonnes per capita
 • When looking at rich countries- 57% statistic- more than half of the emissions
were emitted by not even a 5th of the world’s population.
• Developing countries are now emitting a larger percentage of the Co2 emissions
but rich countries still and always have been the large culprits on emitted
emissions than developing countries.

Some (recent physical impacts)

Impacts of climate change are already happening:

• IPCC (2013, p. 4): ‘since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented
over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of
snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of
greenhouse gases have increased’
• IPCC (2014, p. 1010): ‘on all continents and across major ocean regions, significant
impacts have now been observed’

Sea level rise:

• Global mean sea level has risen by
0.19 (0.17-0.21) metre over the
last century- 20cm
Affecting coastal areas
• >> The Guardian 24.09.2012
• Salinisation of river delta’s
• Contamination of fresh water
sources
Future (IPCC 2018):
• 1.5 °C = 0.26-0.77m by 2100
• But: sea levels will continue to rise
Ocean acidification:
• Due to increased uptake of CO2 from atmosphere
• Impacting marine ecosystems and organisms
• Gattuso (in Pidcock 2016, and based on Gattuso et al. 2015): ‘We have shown that
even the full implementation of the Paris Agreement will bear high risk for warm-
water corals and coral reefs.’ – even if we really abide to Paris agreement
(strongest climate agreement we have to date) there will be significant risks to
corals and coral reefs.
Impacts on the cryosphere:
• Cryosphere= Everything that has to do with ice- especially glaciers
• Global warming + increased soot and dust from human activity and wildfires + algae-
this soot and dust makes the surface level of the glaciers or ice sheets darker
colours- darker colours take up more energy from the sun so they become
warmer and therefore the ice will melt even faster.
Antarctica:
• Peninsula has warmed 2.5°C since 1950
• WAIS is losing mass
• EAIS: 90s: losing mass; 00s: gaining mass
Greenland Ice Sheet is declining at dramatic rates
• 1979-2006: 30% increase in summer melt
• Warmer temperatures lead to increased melt and faster glacier movement
 • Glacier retreat: reductions in mass, length, area
Warming:
Alaska: warmest year on record
• Average temperature: 0.1°C (compared to long-term average of -3.3°C)
2020 heatwave in Siberia:
• 26 June: 38°C (Verkhoyansk)- Record high temperature within Arctic circle
Heatwaves:
2019 European heatwave: records:
• Belgium 41.8°C
• France: 46.1°C
• Germany: 42.6°C
• Sweden: 34.8°C (north)
• UK:
• 38.7°C (National – Cambridge)
• 31.6°C (Edinburgh)
• 35.1°C (Sheffield)
In general: warm and cold:
• Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer
• Warm days/nights: more frequent
• Cold days/nights: less frequent
Precipitation:
• Droughts: e.g. heat wave and droughpht in Northern Europe 2018
• Flooding and extreme weather in the UK winter 2013-2014: ‘there is no evidence to
counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and
hourly heavy rain events’ (UK Met Office)
• In general:
• Wet becomes wetter,
dry becomes drier (but
significant variations)
• Inter-seasonal variations
become more extreme
• Indian monsoon: increase in rainfall of 5-10%
• Inter-annual natural variability
within 10%
• Flooding, droughts, decline in
agricultural production, stocks and
commodities market
E.g
• Flash floods Pakistan (August 2020) e.g. in Karachi & Lahore
• Unprecedented floods in Sudan (August 2020) kill 65 and destroy +14,000 homes
Wildfires:
• More frequent and intense wildfires due to global warming
• 2019 wildfires in Chile and Australia- Australia better equipped at dealing with
wildfires as happens a lot.
• 2020 wildfires in California and Argentina- California is one of the highest
developed states in one of the richest countries in world whereas Argentina is
still developed country but much lower than USA- have been dealing with big
recession in last couple of years- due to resources that both countries have there
is difference with how they can deal with wildfires- California have much more
 money and equipment to deal with wildfires. Infrastructure not as available in
Argentina.
• Shows vulnerability to effect of climate change not only depends on where
located but also social-economic factors like richness.
• Most of the wildfires in California in August-September 2020 seemed to be down to
humans. In fact, more than 80% of wildfires in the USA are caused by humans.
Nonetheless, climate change contributes to the wildfires and their magnitude by
1. Increasing temperatures: warmer temperatures vaporises more water held by
vegetation - vegetation becomes drier and more prone to (faster) burning
2. Increasing the frequency and intensity of droughts, which dries out vegetation
3. Influencing precipitation patterns: if it rains, it's in heavy rain events with a lot of
water falling down quickly, which means that less water can be soaked up by
vegetation and the soil, so in the long term these become drier
4. Influencing wind patterns: this was notably the case in Australia in 2019, where
strong, hot winds made it impossible to extinguish the fires.
•
Hurricanes, storms and Typhoons:
• Increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events
• Hurricane Irma (2017)
Hurricane Dorian (August/September 2019)
• Most intense tropical cyclone on record in The Bahamas
• Top wind speeds: 295km/h
• 70,000 people homeless (out of 385,637 population)
• Damage: USD 3.4 billion (GDP = USD 12.6 billion)
Typhoon Hagibis (October 2019)
23 August 2020: Hurricane Marco and Tropical Storm Laura
• 2020 is predicted to become the second most active hurricane season on record
• 24 named storms predicted (compared with 2005 (28 known storms) and 30-year
annual average (13))- annual average of last 3 decades- 2020 will have almost
double storms than average of over 30 years.

Most significant climate anomalies:

 • More and more weather events are taking place and they are becoming more
and more severe.

Interview: James Hansen

• one of the top climate scientists in the world- dubbed as the father of climate change
awareness
• first warned against dangers of climate change in 1988
• NASAs top climate scientist
• Sea level was stable for last several thousand years but with fossil fuels being
burned planet is being warmer and sea level is going up because ice is melting-
gone up about 20cm on global average. Significant contribution to the storm
surges
• Amount of water vapour in atmosphere is increasing because atmosphere is
getting warmer- amount of water being dumped in storms is larger because of
human made global warming.
• Strength of storms- all get energy from energy from water vapour- because
atmosphere holds more water vapour the storms are stronger- well established
facts that it is all human induced.
• Can you say climate change caused this particular storm/hurricane- just like one
cigarette won’t cause lung cancer.

The attribution problem

• Hansen said part to attribute one specific storm to climate change as heatwaves
and storms happened before climate change as well due to natural variability.
With climate change we see these weather events are becoming more frequent
and intense due to the fact that more energy is stored in the oceans so more
water vapour in atmosphere.
“Core” attribution problem:
• Uncertainty in attribution of impacts to climate change
• Natural variability and other factors
causing extreme weather
• Proportion or whole event
attributable to climate change?
• E.g. European heatwave in 2003:
• 70,000 heat-related deaths
• Stott et al. (2004): Human influence
has doubled the risk of a heatwave of
similar magnitude.
• Global warming is one factor that will cause Heatwave X
“Extended” attribution problem:
• There are even more problems if we
first look at causes of global warming
• 7.8 billion people are emitted GG at the
moment- industries are also emitting
GG- all of this has impact on global
warming.
 • Can also look at effects of extreme weather conditions- whether a person would
die due to a heatwave depends on the vulnerability of person for example- e.g a
25 person and 85-year-old- 85 would be much more vulnerable to the heat.
Vulnerability is also determined by social/economic factors- e.g whether live in
rich or poor country. Could install air con if rich.
• There is no clear line between your emissions to a particular death of a victim of
extreme weather conditions- because so many facots interfering and attributing
to the problem- makes causal relationship in climate change very difficult- a
factor as to why people are not motivated to do something about climate change-
not clear that my emissions are killing someone on other side of the world.

Key human rights under threat (with Caney 2010)

The human rights framework:

• Different normative frameworks: If evaluating climate change there is different
frameworks can use:
• Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) if benefits outweigh costs would say tackle
climate change and vice versa
• Human security- further than military and national security- about human
security in general.
• Intrinsic value of natural world
• Climate change as a threat to human rights
• HRs represent moral thresholds:
• HRs respect each and every individual, by virtue of humanity
• HRs designate the most basic moral standards to which persons are entitled
• HRs generate obligations on all persons to respect these basic minimum
standards
Caney 2010: Methodological minimalism:
• Caney has applied this human rights framework in an article in 2010 to the case
of climate change- uses methodological minimalism- taking the least
controversial assumptions possible to start out analysis.
• Debate between positive and negative rights e.g the right to food- Negative=
everyone should farm themselves or go to shop and buy your own food. Positive=
if someone has right to adequate food then someone else will have to provide this
food or make sure they have adequate food. Positive are much more
controversial than negative e.g most libertarians will only endorse negative
rights. Caney says only negative.
• Minimalist approach:
• Only negative rights
• Only key rights: life, health, subsistence
• In sum: persons have a right that other people do not act so as to deprive them of their
life, health or means of subsistence- not depriving other people’s from rights is
focusing on negative rights.
• Ecumenical support from different ethical perspectives:
• Impacts on key human rights are not the only morally relevant impacts
• Leaves room for other moral ideals and values
Ways in which climate change is threatening key human rights:
The human right to life:
• Increasing mortality related to extreme weather events:
 • Increased frequency and intensity of
hurricanes, storm-surge flooding, landslides
• Heat wave in Europe in 2003: 70,000 heat-related deaths
• Mortality from increased morbidity: 166,000 deaths as a result of malnutrition,
diarrhoea, malaria and floods attributable to climate change (WHO 2004; 2000
figures) outdated figures- WHO haven’t updated figures for more recent years-
could be because of attribution problem- difficult to attribute specific
consequences to particular weather events. Attribution problem interferes with
analysis.
• Violent conflicts resulting from increased resource scarcity and migration
The human right to health:
• Direct impacts:
• Heat- and cold-related impacts
• Floods and storms
• Ecosystem-mediated impacts:
• Infectious diseases: malaria, dengue, tick-borne diseases- area where they
can survive will increase.
• Food- and water-borne infections: cholera, diarrhoea
• Impacts mediated through human institutions:
• Nutrition and water insecurity
• Mental health problems:
increased stress as a result of harsher wealth conditions
• Compounded health risks as consequence of migration, social disruptions and
conflict
The human right to subsistence: food and water:
• Food:
• Higher temperatures and changes in precipitation:
• Will reduce quality and quantity of food yields
• Result in shifts of fish populations
• Affect livestock- their health
• Lead to food-price shocks- poor people will be impacted severely
• IPCC 2014: Substantial negative impact on:
• Per capita calorie availability
• Childhood undernutrition
• Undernutrition-related child deaths
• Water:
• Exacerbate water insecurity in many regions
• Changing temperatures and precipitation patterns, changing run-off patterns,
glacial shrinkage (many rely on glaciers for fresh water), increasing floods
and droughts compromise flows of water for irrigation (for agriculture) and
consumption

Just a couple of ways in which climate change is threatening these key rights- if we only
take these rights in their negative interpretation- climate change is threatening these
human rights.

Some critical reflections on the human rights framework

Other human rights threatened by climate change:
• Caney’s ideas don’t take into account other rights that are affected by climate
change
• Other – established – human rights:
• Adequate housing- housing is most often mentioned as part of subsistence
but Caney only focuses on food and water. Floods in Sudan e.g. thousands
of people were homeless.
• Development- climate change will halt or even reverse development
especially in developing countries- interaction with poverty as well.
• Property- more controversial human right
• Self-determination
• “New” rights: some people have suggested to introduce the right to an adequate
environment- not in universal declaration of human rights
• Nickel (1993), Hayward (2005, 2007)
• Vanderheiden goes further and says (2008): should always includes climatic
stability- clear that climate change would harm this human right
• The right to emit?
• A right to equal per capita emissions
• HENRY Shue (2001): a right to subsistence emissions- in current
circumstance we all need emissions to survive- especially Co2 emissions-
an Indian farmer who will irrigate his crops with a diesel generator for
example. We should have right to emit as much emissions that will reach
subsistence.
• This is all controversial as we see that all the emissions emitted as
exacerbating climate change which is already having negative effects.
• Tim Hayward has objected against Shue- the right to subsistence
emissions is contingent upon the economy- if find other ways of reaching
subsistence without the CO2 emissions that would be much better- not
right to subsistence emissions that should be affirmed but the right to
susbsistence.
Vulnerability
Global distribution of wealth:
• Darker countries the higher their wealth- richer they are

Areas at risk:
• Areas that are blue are more at risk of climate change
 • Comparing both maps- can see that areas that are poorer are more vulnerable to
climate change- not only depends on areas they live but mainly social- economic
circumstances.

Rich vs poor:
• There is inequity in climate change- richer countries have caused most of the
emissions and poorer people are suffering more of the consequences- poorer
countries face the consequences first.
• Costello et al. (2009, p. 1694):
'The inequity of climate change—with the rich causing most of the problem and the
poor initially suffering most of the consequences—will prove to be a source of
historical shame to our generation if nothing is done to address it.'
• Jamieson (2005, p. 227):
'Even more troubling than the fact that poor countries suffer more from climate-
related impacts than rich countries is the fact that poor people suffer more from such
impacts than rich people, wherever they live.’- even though country like
Bangladesh who is a country that’s v vulnerable to climate change- will be rich
Bangladesh people who wont suffer consequences that much because they have
money- whereas in rich country like UK might be poor people who suffer.
• Qualification:
• Responsibility: also in developing countries:
global consumption elites
• Vulnerability: also in rich world:
poor and marginalised groups

Implications of a human rights approach to climate change:

• In contrast to a cost-benefit analysis- human right approach is a discriminating
approach
• Discriminating approach to the impacts of climate change
• Advantages: emphasis on most severe impacts- an advantage as allows us to
differentiate between essential (health,life) whereas cost-benefit will also
take into account luxuries and put them on same level as essential
problems.
• Disadvantages: excludes other things that some might find valuable- other
rights like right to self-determination. Remain dissatisfied with Caney’s
approach.
• Revisiting our approach to the costs involved in tackling climate change:
 • Cost benefit would weigh benefits against costs- human rights says no
matter what costs if it affects our rights it should be stopped.
• If a person is violating human rights, then he or she should desist even if it is
costly
• Dangerous climate change should be interpreted as climate change that systematically
undermines the widespread enjoyment of human rights- means that dangerous
climate change is not 2 degrees Celsius as we see climate change is already
harming human rights.

Critical considerations:
• HRs defended by appealing to fundamental and vital human interests they protect
• Other possibilities: basic needs, capabilities
• Does not include all relevant ethical considerations (e.g. interspecies justice or
intrinsic value of nature)
• However: form moral core
• Demandingness? Are human rights too demanding?
• Demandingness of human rights become real problem because we are
also thinking about intergenerational justice:
• Especially when the rights of many future generations are involved- even
most basic rights might become too demanding- to try and protect for all
generations in the future.
• Response:
• Empirical question, but problem of financial costs versus opportunity
costs
• Negative versus positive rights – corresponding duties-
• Priority of basic rights

SUMMARY OF HUMAN RIGHTS APPROACH

ADVANTAGES=
• Discriminatory approach
• Costs of tackling climate change not entirely relevant
• Allows us to more specifically conceptualise “dangerous” climate change
DISADVANTAGES=
• Other ethical considerations not taken into consideration- discriminatory
approach
• Too demanding
• Will affect future generations aswell- however a)not born yet don’t have rights
b) non-identity problem

Gardiner (2013): human rights in a hostile climate

• Wrote a very good critical article of Caney’s human rights approach to climate
change
• Says there are two philosophical problems- they are different even though seem
to be similar
• 1) Future people do not have rights since they are not yet in existence- we don’t have
duties towards them
• 2) (notorious) non-identity problem- we are currently in the now- we have two
choices, either we will mitigate climate change or not- however the choice we
make will bring into existence two completely different worlds with two
 completely different sets of people. Person x, y, z cannot complain if we don’t
mitigate because if we did, they wouldn’t have come into existence.
• Each and every choice we take right now will influence the identity of people
living in the future.
• An intricate philosophical problem- huge debates still about this problem

However:
• Climate change already affects current people- don’t even have to look at future
generations- we know current people’s identity and they have human rights so
we have a duty to mitigate climate change.
• Future not-yet-born individuals will possess rights when they are born (because they
will be human), even though their particular identities are not yet determined

Lecture 3:
Responses to climate change

Natural question that arises is how we can respond to climate change

Introduction:

• Mitigation,
Adaptation/compensation= least controversial- most established response to
climate change
• Other two are much more recent interventions that need to be researched more.

Mitigation- reducing greenhouse gases

Categories of mitigation:
• Reduction of GG
• Sink enhancement: see carbon- negative technologies
Reduction of GHG emissions: Factors defining carbon footprint

• These three factors when talking about reducing environmental impact-

population, affluence, technological efficiency.
• Environmental impact depends on how many people etc.
• This becomes environmentally unsustainable if its larger than the carrying
capacity of the eco system- with climate change we are talking about atmospheric
capacity to absorb GG before we reach dangerous global warming.

Different impacts:
• Focusing on one ethical issue or one dimension is problematic- need to focus on
all 3 dimensions if we want to reduce our environmental impact to sustainable
levels.
Population:
• Choice of strategy: reduction of fertility rates
• Coercion
• Development – education
• Plasticity:
• World average fertility rate: 1965 (5.068) versus 2018 (2.415)- reduced
fertility rates by half
• International differences: poor vs rich
• Korea (Rep.) (1.0 child per woman) (LOWEST FERTILITY RATE
IN WORLD) versus Niger (6.9)
• OECD (rich countries) (1.7) versus Sub-Saharan Africa (4.7)
• N.B- the replacement fertility rate- to keep global population at same level
is about 2.1 to 2.3 children per woman on average.
• Plasticity constraints
• Reversal at very high levels of development
• Social values, traditions, personal choice- we think having a child or not is
a very private choice- we look negatively at outside agencies interfering
with this very personal and private choice.
 • Social justice: migration (in republic of Korea won’t have enough people in
one or two generations to support economy- would use migration-
another e.g seasonal laborer’s who are economic migrants), fertility often
highest in poorest countries

Affluence:
• Choice of strategy:
• Top-down- strategies taken by government that are imposed on people or
corporations: carbon tax, nudging, regulation (e.g highly polluting cars not
allowed anymore- could outlaw SUVs or hummers)
• Measures individual consumers can take- Consumption efficiency (if you
make tea and to not put 1 litre in kettle but only the amount of water u
need- less energy to boil water )and frugality (also known as minimalism-
try to reach a higher quality of life with less material goods)
• Plasticity:
• Electric energy use (kWh per capita): Norway (23,000) versus Sweden
(13,480)- Norwegians consume nearly double amount of energy than
people in Sweden- have more or less same economic development.
• Diminishing marginal utility- lots of evidence- after a certain threshold
when peoples basic needs are met, after that thresholds, the gains in terms
of well-being diminish. After threshold the more income you get the fewer
returns you get. Returns being your well-being.
• Plasticity constraints:
• Satisfaction of basic needs- can never be 0 around the world- need some
basic needs
• Social values, psychological difficulties (e.g. habits), consumer sovereignty
(especially the case in market societies)
• Social justice: poor versus rich- we have to take into account that poor people will
still increase their consumption in order to increase their quality of life- so if we
only looked at affluence and consumption would be unjust to tell poor people to
reduce consumption if their needs are not met. Have to focus on rich people
surrendering luxuries rather than poor people surrendering basic needs.

Technology:
• Choice of strategy: improving old technologies (making coal powered electricity
more efficient) or introducing new ones (windmills/solar panels)- both strategies
come with their own issues.
• Plasticity:
• Widespread “techno-optimism”- widespread belief that we can still tackle
many environmental and social problems with technology- this is more of
a political ideology rather than something that is really true.
• CO2 emissions (kg per $): Ireland (0.1) versus Estonia (0.5)- how much it
needs- production processes in Ireland are much more efficient.
• Plasticity constraints:
• Even the most efficient technologies have a residual environmental impact-
even windmills, an environmentally friendly way to produce energy- their
construction needs steel which is an industry that is highly polluting and
highly co2 intensive. Solar panels aswell- need plastic and also oars and
 rare materials which needs to be mined which has high environmental
impact.
• Ignorance, prejudice and vested economic interests
• Rebound effect
• Social justice:
• Preconceptions about adopting new technologies- e.g renewable energy
was met with a lot of scepticism and still is to some extent.
• Decisions about technologies made by economic elites with vested interests-
more profitable to operate in an environmental way
• Rich people make decisions- poor people who will feel consequences of
climate change first- there is a gap between those who can solve the
problem-economic elites and those that will first feel the effect.
• Carbon leakage- many highly polluting industries have just relocated to
developing countries where less restrictions regarding co2 emissions.
Pollution is exported to poor countries- socially unjust
• Inefficiency of developing countries (kg CO2 per $): high income (0.2) versus
middle income (0.4)

P and A and T should be seen together:

• Shouldn’t focus on one but on the three
dimensions together- each will have a residual
impact.
• Due to residual environmental impacts and
• plasticity constraints:
• Merely addressing one factor will not reduce
impact to sustainable levels
• Feasibility of modest changes on each factor-
positive factor- better to spread our efforts
amongst dimensions as will only need modest
changes to reach same effect as a very large
change on one dimension which might be
unfeasible or very demanding
• Monitoring the three factors and interdependencies between them
• Bespoke policies for different communities
• Obtaining environmental sustainability and social justice- by focusing on 3 we can
take into account social justice issues in much more detail than focusing on just
one dimension.

Carbon-negative technologies

• Looked at sources- now looking at sinks- if we can stop sinks which store carbon
we can prevent the accumulation of GG in the atmosphere- can be done by
carbon-negative technologies.
• Geoengineering is carbon negative technologies and solar raditation
management proposals.

Sink enhancement:
Biosequestration:
 • Ocean fertilisation:
• Nitrogen and iron fertilisation
• Photosynthesis by phytoplankton- helps process- makes phytoplankton
grow faster and more extensively- can take up more co2.
• Terrestrial:
• Afforestation (increasing amount of forest) & reforestation (putting trees
back where there once was)- planting trees
• Enhancing photosynthesis
• Soils- some carbon will be stored here- in roots of grass plants- can
fertilise parts of land where there isn’t grass growing.
Carbon capture and storage:
• Carbon capture:
• At point source
• Scrubbing the atmosphere- a chemical reaction where there is air being
driven through filters and there is a chemical reactions where the carbon
is retained and the clear air is emitted again.
• Both still in their infancies- need more research to make them more
effective.
• Carbon storage:
• Problem of storing carbon- can it remain in trees- can we store it
somewhere more definite as they burn.
• Enhanced oil recovery
• Ocean storage- can inject in oceans where carbon would dissolve- however
will increase ocean acidification with effect of marine life.
• Mineral storage (limestone)- carbon can be stored in limestone-
• BECCS:
• Bio-energy combined with carbon capture and storage- mainly planting trees
which will absorb carbon through photosynthesis. Then burn trees in
powerplant to produce energy- capture carbon being emitted and then
store it in a depleted oil field.

Ethical issues
• BECS and carbon capture and storage is still in its infancy- not sure if it will
ever work- more research will have to be done
• Availability and scale- need global scale- not sure if we can have those
installations on a scale that is needed to tackle climate change.
• Costs: money, energy, land, water, and other environmental resources
• Environmental effects, leakage, waste- e.g ocean acidification or problems with
leakage if its leaks from oil field or from mineral storage.
• Political control and governance- who will be responsible for paying for the carbon
capture and storage- who will control it politically speaking.
Shue (2017): moral hazard problem:
• Reliance on carbon-negative tech compromises ambitious mitigation- we are not sure
we can or to what extent we can rely on them. If we assume we can rely on them
in future that might compromise the mitigation efforts we do right now. If we say
it’s just a technological solution then this is a big risk that we are running with
the uncertainty of whether we can rely on it. Might be a non viable solution and
then we are too late to mitigate climate change at this point.
• Cannot avoid (temporary or permanent) damage during overshoot
 • Balance between potential costs and actual benefits- uncertainty about costs and
benefits- not sure at this point if it is worth investigating carbon negative
solutions further.

Summary:
• For me (Wouter) it is obvious that carbon negative technologies will become
necessary as we are already in overshoot and the amount of carbon in the air
some of it needs to be captured. Also have to be careful in the way we do it and
cannot rely too heavily on it.
• The IPPC will say however we use carbon negative technologies we will always
need mitigation techniques right now otherwise we won’t be able to tackle
climate change- should never rely fully on carbon-negative technologies.

Solar radiation management

Also called climate engineering or geoengineering

Definition of geoengineering:
• Keith (2000, p. 246):
• The deliberate manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract
anthropogenic climate change
• Or in other words- Intentional large-scale manipulation of the environment-
contains two elements
• Scale- have to be scale large enough to manipulate environment
• Intent- have to be deliberate
• No sharp boundaries - large range of measures
• Including (some) sink enhancement measures- might be included
• Paradigm case: solar radiation management- best technique is through
stratospheric sulfate injections

Methods (1)
Surface and space albedo enhancement:
Trying to increase the amount of energy that’s reflected back into space
• Surface albedo modification:
• Roofing materials, …- painting roofs of building white or lighter colours so
they reflect solar energy back into space
• High-albedo crops- plant more of these crops so more energy gets reflected
back into space
• Obstruction of solar radiation in space:
• Mirror- installing mirror in orbit around earth- at which point in orbit do
we need to install it? In general still science fiction solutions- better to
look at albedo and cloud enhancement.
• Dust shade

Methods (2)
Cloud albedo enhancement:
• Tropospheric marine cloud brightening- troposphere is lower atmosphere closer to
earth’s surface- can increase amount of clouds in troposphere- white surfaces of
clouds reflets energy coming from sun back into space. Increasing marine
clouds- clouds above oceans.
• Aerosols (salt) form condensation nuclei
 • Above ocean: lack of condensation nuclei
• Stratospheric sulphate injection: core form of geoengineering and solar radiation
management- stratosphere is higher level of atmosphere where the ozone layer is.
Inject sulphate aerosols which have capacity to reflect solar energy back into
space.
• Mimics volcanic eruption- we know after volcanic eruptions global
tempuratures went down a bit because of the sulphate aerosols in
atmosphere. In 1991 or 1992 there was eruption in Philippians- very big
eruption and after we have seen a global cooling of around 0.5 degrees
Celsius- stratospheric sulphate injection mimics this.
• Reflection of solar radiation
• Difference: local versus global- tropospheric vs stratospheric
o Effectiveness
o Management
• Cloud brightening happens on local scale so issue sof effectiveness would need a
lot of these installations but on other hand management and governance would
be much easier as these clouds will rain down after couple of hours or days at
most- means if we have put too many clouds it is easy to correct this mistake.
• With sulphate injection its other way round- they happen on such high altitude
means they have more global effect- need much fewer investment and effort for
them to have effective solution to climate change but once they are injected we
cannot control them anymore. Management is much more complicated.

TED talk by David Keith

• Solar energy sharing is still just an idea- was first proposed in 60s- could be
implemented right now if people wanted to but still an idea
• If we wanted to turn this into a technology, we would have to have a serious
research programme- Keith is arguing for this
• Research would build on existing science we already have- aerosol science,
atmospheric science. This by no means a science problem- governance is main
problem.
• Things that might be lower risk than sulphates- maybe diamonds- same amount
of cooling but less effect on stratosphere- less than half of ozone lost. Isn’t
diamonds expensive? 1 gram per person per year. Point is research programme
is needed.
• We don’t have adequate monitoring systems; we don’t have even the beginning
of institutions to govern this technology- we can’t start today- we just need to
start research.
• He is asking for a serious systematic research programme that looks to
understand the risks and how to reduce the risks.
• Still important to note- mitigation will remain essential, even if we would deploy
SRM

Ted talk- Keith- 2007- a critical look at geoengineering against climate change
- Would think problem is relatively recent- with Kyoto and Paris agreement may
be on road to solution- wrong- known about the problem for 50 years and
accomplished close to nothing.
- Geoengineering- what we do if we don’t stop emissions quickly enough- already
past the point- need to do something to stop it
 - Put sulphates in stratosphere where they reflect light and cool the planet- Keith
knows for certain it will work- yes there are side effects- because been done by
nature- e,.g volcanoes
- There’s some bad effects e.g destroying ozone layer but clearly cools down and
also is FAST- slowing emissions are intrinsically slow as takes time to build all
the hardware we need to reduce emissions
- Does it work?- seems to be YES
- Talks about essay by Crutzen- albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulphur
injections….- in last year Crutzen published essay saying because of slow rate of
progess we should think about things like this- said whats been said before- says
we should think about this even though there will be ozone impacts.
- Can do geoengineering instead of cutting emissions as its cheaper- could create
an ice age at a cost of 0.001 percent of GDP- very cheap.
- He doesn’t think anybody takes the idea of stopping reducing our emissions and
as concentrations go up increase geoengineering seriously- we are just walking
further and further away from current climate- other problems like ocean
acidification from c02 in atmosphere.
- Case harder to reject- geoengineering is better than not- geoengineering- do geo-
engineering for a little while but not a substitute for action- problem is that it
creates a moral hazard as means people wont reduce their emissions as much-
fundamental reasons why its been politically unacceptable to talk about these.
- 2013 has a book- a case for climate engineering-
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bham/reader.action?docID=3339686

https://www.ted.com/talks/
david_keith_a_critical_look_at_geoengineering_against_climate_change/up-next?
language=en#t-400772

General defence:
• Advantages of it
• Bad consequences of climate change are avoided- most obvious advantage- if we
can reflect parts of the energy from the sun to the earth then we can put in
motion global cooling or atleast stablise global warming.
• Geoengineering will be cheaper than mitigation:
• Money-wise: costs largely unknown- haven’t tried it on sufficiently large
scale but there is consensus that it will be much lower than mitigation.
• Opportunity costs: comparison with lifestyle changes- mitigation will require
us to change lifestyle e.g stop flying or eating meat whereas
geoengineering will allow us to have these environmentally unfriendly
habits while preventing climate change.
• Mimics natural processes- volcanic eruption e.g
• Governance:
• Easy to employ
• No need for global consensus- one country can implement it
• Flexibility for mitigation pathways- even if it is just temporary would delay climate
change and will give us more time to reduce our greenhouse gases.

General objections:
• Uncertainties and risks (e.g. reversibility)- if we put these sulphate aerosols in
atmosphere, we cannot extract them if we have put too many in.
 • Side-effects:
• E.g. ozone depletion, atmospheric temperature changes- sulphate injections
have capability to reflect energy back into space- but also have capability
to store energy- stratosphere would warm. These side effects are not well
known yet more research is needed.
• Unanticipated and cascading effects on organisms and ecosystems
• Governance- advantage to one extent as one country can implement but also can
be abused- some countries might weaponize the stratosphere and threaten to
globe with global cooling. North Korea could decide to put in a lot of
stratospheric sulphates would pose threat to global community.
• Moral hazard:
• Might hamper mitigation efforts
• Underlying problem not solved- the fact that GG are accumulating in the
atmosphere- if we don’t also mitigate climate change there is no exit
strategy-would have to keep putting in stratospheric sulphate injections.
• No exit strategy
• Relationship with nature even more mediated by technology- do we really want to
allow further accumulation of GG in the atmosphere and just solve problems
with easy techno fix or should we actually listen to lecture re-evaluating our
relationship with the nature that we live with.

Arming the future?

Research first (= defense)
• Should not deploy first- need to research first- need to expand our knowledge. If
we don’t do that now we don’t have enough knowledge to employ geoengineering
when or if it becomes necessary.
• Arm future people with knowledge of geoengineering.
• Not engaging in geoengineering research precludes the option of deploying it when
necessary
• Research first:
• Distinction between research and deployment- research is worthwhile we
need it- should develop theoretical models.
• Research is worthwhile
• Modelling and small-scale experiments
• Keith et al. (2010, p. 426): ‘it would be reckless to conduct the first large-scale
SRM tests in an emergency.’
• Governance of research:
• Even research first is a bit problematic- governance should be v inclusive
• Inclusive: proponents + adversaries, various stakeholders, general public, … -
bodies should impost proponents and adversaries- should not be only
researchers who want to do geoengineering research everyone should be
involved.
• Bottom-up international cooperation and norm creation

Arming the future- Objections:

• Enhancing knowledge for its own sake?- is each and every kind of knowledge wirth
investigating?
• Trivial research- doesn’t have any application or not important enough for
society, morally bad research- research into weapons for example.
 Examples of when knowledge for knowledges sake would not be good.
Need to see if research into geoengineering would be morally bad.
• Limited resources for research: zero-sum game?- if there is a million going
into research into SRM that’s a million that cannot go into mitigation or
adaptation for example.
• Institutional momentum- once institutions start investing they look down a
pathway
• Rogue agents – abuse- malicious business implementing it- research is accessible-
rich people can buy access to scientific date- some broke agents like dictators
could abuse this research to employ geoengineering as a threat to other
countries.
• Obscures the ethics at stake:
• Hubris- we become too arrogant- think we can manage everything
ourselves- would be better to be a bit more modest and start ot listen to
environment and nature.
• Technofix
• Relationship with environment

The desperation argument (Gardiner 2013)

• Geoengineering is “a lesser evil” than the threat of climate catastrophe
• Especially for particularly vulnerable countries- e.g Maldives
• Practical implementation?
• By the desperate countries themselves? Also poor countries so don’t have
technological skills or finance to employ SRM.
• Assistance by the technologically sophisticated countries? - increase inequity
between technologically sophisticated countries which are mainly
responsible for causing climate change and the poorer countries that are
more vulnerable to it.
• Another issue- Justification:
• Consent- low line island country would say it’s a lesser evil so we will
engage in it- that one or group of countries cannot give consent to the bad
consequences of geoengineering to everyone that will be affected-
everyone around globe will be affected by bad consequences- so can’t rely
on consent that only their people give.
• Self-defence

The context of geoengineering (Gardiner 2011)

• What is the ethical context within which geoengineering is likely to occur, and what
difference does it make for ethical analysis?

Need to investigate geoengineering = result of political inertia

• First-best policies: mitigation and adaptation
• “A perfect moral storm”:
• Obstacles to action
• Temptation to pass the buck- to allow us not to engage in effective mitigation and
adaptation but pass the buck to future generations that will need to engage in
geoengineering.

Adaptation and compensation

ADAPTATION
Adaptation- definitions
• = the process of adjustment to actual or expected climatic changes- assumes that
some of these changes cannot be mitigated.
• Adaptation of Human systems:
• Moderate or avoid harm- for example building dikes or other kinds of
infrastructure to reduce harm or storms.
• Exploit beneficial opportunities- if that’s the case we need to try to exploit
them- in Greenland with temp rising there is more opportunities for
agriculture.
• Adaptation of Natural systems: human intervention might facilitate adjustment- e.g
choosing to plant diff trees when temp goes up
• Adaptation can be Proactive versus reactive- proactive means preventing these
climatic changes from having a harmful effect. Reactive is trying to respond to
climate changes once they have already happened. E.g difference between dikes
and when a house has flooded, people can build it in a more robust way (after the
climatic change)
Adaptation- options
• Structural/physical:
• Creating infrastructure to deal with climatic changes- a way you can
adapt to changing environment
• Engineered and built environment
• Technological
• Ecosystem-based- increase or replant and reforest mangrove forests which
protect coastal lines from erosion.
• Services
• Social:
• Educational- Bangladesh many people don’t know how to swim- issue with
floods- better prepared to survive during floods.
• Informational- e.g early warning systems for hurricanes and storms
• Behavioral
• Institutional:
• Economic- e.g insurance policies
• Laws and regulations
• Government policies and programs

Adaptation- moral risks

• Shift in attention from mitigation to adaptation
• In view of already occurring climatic changes- mainly because people start
to acknowledge there is many climatic changes occurring. We need to
adapt to these changes that have already ocurred
• “Mopping the floor while the tap is still running”- if we focus only on
adaptation without mitigating climate change- mitigating would be
closing tap- water will keep flowing if we don’t close tap. We have to
mitigate even if we acknowledge that adaptation has become necessary
aswell.
• Jamieson (2005, 223):
 • The Polluted Pays instead of the Polluter Pays- if we focus too much on
adaptation the polluted pays instead of the polluter- adaptation refocuses
us on potential victims of climate change.
• Could be avoided by Internationalisation of costs- the rich countries have to
fund adaptation in poorer countries which is a viable strategy. In political
realist terms rich countries are reluctant to put any money into it.
• Vulnerability of the poor:
• Live in more vulnerable areas
• Are more dependent on a stable climate
• Less adaptive capacity- if temp rises and your rich can install air con
whereas poor people do not have this option.
• Have less power to influence policy

COMPENSATION
Compensation- definitions
• = Making recompense for a failure to fulfil the responsibility to mitigate and the
responsibility to enable others to adapt
• If mitigation and adaptation have failed- then use compensation
• Goes beyond adaptation: rectification of harm, losses and damage
• But often occurs in the form of reactive adaptation- e.g supporting someone
financially after their home has been destroyed in a storm.
• Acknowledgement of already occurring impacts of climate change to which
adaptation has become impossible
• Making victims of this injustice ‘whole again’
Compensation-ethical issues
• Mitigation versus adaptation versus compensation: different grounds of justice:
• Mitigation focuses on perpetrators while compensation and adaptation
focus on victim.
• Burden-sharing and harm avoidance versus rectification
• Perpetrator-centred versus victim-centred
• Means-replacing versus ends-replacing compensation
• Money as compensation can’t make up for certain losses- not about just
giving people money- e.g lose a family member- the loss cannot be
compensated by money.
• Instrumental or intrinsic value of some good or activity- if something more
complicated. Can often make up for instrumental value but hard to make
compensation for an intrinsic value.
• E.g. Inuit petition against USA government 2005: climate change results in a
decline of caribou
• Hunting caribou is means to the end of nourishment
• However, hunting caribou is key aspect of Inuit life- much more
difficult to compensate.
• Not all things with intrinsic value can be compensated
• E.g. people in small-island states being relocated- some governments are
talking about relocating if islands become inhabitable- Maldives may
relocate to Sri Lanka or India for example. Wouldn’t be too difficult to do
but not what people in Maldives or Inuit want- their identity gets lost.
 Lecture 4:
Who should pay?

Introduction:
• First will discuss general issues related to costs of tackling climate change
• Then look at abstract considerations regarding the allocation of responsibility
• Then focus on adv and disadv of the principles that have been proposed to distribute
the burdens of climate change. The three most important are:
1) The Polluter Pays Principle- most important one
2) The Ability to Pay Principle
3) The Beneficiary Pays Principle

If we want to implement the strategies we talked about last week who should pay?

The costs of mitigation and adaptation

Macro-economic costs of climate change:

• OECD (organization for economic corporation and development- society of rich
countries) (2015): Cost of climate change without further mitigation:
• 1.0-3.3% on global annual GDP by 2060
• 2-10% on global annual GDP by 2100

• Wei et al. (2020): costs of climate change by 2100:

• No action- no mitigation: US$150-792 trillion
• Pledges under Paris Agreement: US$127-616 trillion- these pledges are
inadequate to tackle CC- the cost with them isn’t really that much lower
than CC without taking any action.

• WHO 2018: air pollution causes 7 million deaths worldwide per year and costs
US$5.11 trillion- over 5 trillion dollars a year- these costs are v significant.

Costs of mitigation:
Macro-economic costs (in terms of consumption reduction):
- IPCC (2014): Losses in global consumption of keeping CO2-concentrations below
450ppm by 2100:
• 1-4% in 2030; 2-6% in 2050; 3-11% in 2100 relative to consumption growth
of 300-900% in baseline scenarios
• Annual reduction of consumption growth: 0.04-0.14% over the century
relative to annual consumption growth of 1.6-3% in baseline scenarios

Cost of mitigation:
Why is it so cheap in monetary terms?:
• Actually quite cheap to mitigate CC
• Fossil fuel subsidies:
• Reliance on fossil fuels costs us a lot
• S$ 4.7 trillion (6.3% of global GDP) in 2015- give to oil companies
 • IMF (2019): “Efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015 would have lowered global
carbon emissions by 28% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46%, and
increased government revenue by 3.8% of GDP”
• Hidden costs and externalities:
• Not all costs of oil consumption are incorporated/internalised in the cost
of a product
• A Big Mac of $5.60 should actually cost $12 if the full burden on society is
taken into account- this burden on society might include people working
for McDonalds- limited health insurance- not getting enough money.
Consumers- obesity/diabetes- burden on society. Also environmental-
cows produce a lot of methane which is polluting global environment-
these costs aren’t interalised in a big mac- if we did the price of big mac
would more or less double.
• Benefits (e.g. health benefits, innovation, efficiency gains, …)
• Carbon-negative technologies
• Uncertainties regarding “the last mile”- we know there are some easy actions that
we as individuals could take to reduce GHG- called low hanging fruits- these are
cheap- the further we go the more expensive the measures will become.

Costs of mitigation:
Opportunity costs versus benefits:
• 80-90% emission reduction before 2050 and towards zero-carbon in second half of
this century
• Requires completely different lifestyle, completely different societies
• However: also benefits and opportunities- in economic terms the
opportunities are there for renewable energy corporations. For
individuals- we can increase our well-being my non-materialistic goals for
example
• WHO 2018:
• Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about a million lives a
year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone- concludes
that the health benefits of meeting climate change goals will far outweigh
its costs.

Costs of adaptation:
- World Bank (2010, 19): cost of adapting to a 2°C warmer world by 2050 will amount
to:- (the assumption of 2 degrees- unambitious mitigation pathway- Paris
agreement says we should keep global warming below 2 degrees by 2100. Very
unambitious in terms of mitigation.)
• $70-100 billion per year
• 0.17% of global wealth (global GDP = $60 trillion)- cost of adaptation is
quite manageable- minimal – should be doable for global society.
- Many” low-regret” actions:
• Priorities for development even without climate change
• Water supply, flood protection, poverty alleviation, …
- Coordination is necessary: mitigation and adaptation compete for scarce resources-
we see that countries are reluctant to invest even a small amount of money into
mitigation and adaptation- financial resources are scarce- mitigation and
adaptation compete for these resources- but we need both so would have to
allocate the scarce resources.
Although, as we've seen in week 2, the cost-benefit analysis is an incomplete approach to
climate change (to say the least), comparing estimations of economic costs does tell us
something. And everyone agrees, the costs of not tackling climate change are going to be
massive. For very recent estimations, you can read the following:
 The article by Wei et al. in Nature Communications (Links to an external site.)
 Treehugger's short article on the basis of Wei et al.

Assigning responsibility

- General and abstract issues when assigning responsibility

Principles of responsibility (Miller 2007, chapter 4):

• Miller’s book on national responsibility and global justice relevant to these
slides- discusses the conception of responsibility
• Remedial responsibility: if talking about fighting climate change- want to remedy
the bad situation that climate change is “To have a special responsibility, either
individually or along with others, to remedy the position of the deprived or suffering
people, one that is not equally shared with all agents; and to be liable to sanction
(blame, punishment, etc.) if the responsibility is not discharged” (pp. 98-99)- Miller
• If you are assigned remedial responsibility, then you have a special responsibility to
alleviate the plight of the deprived.
• Principles:
• Backward-looking:
• Causal responsibility = bare causation- no agency involved- e.g knock
over someone and help them up
• Outcome responsibility = causation + genuine agency- e.g light a
bonfire in back yard and the fire goes into neighbours house and
burns it- not only caused but also had genuine control involved
from me.
• Moral responsibility = causation + genuine agency + blameworthiness-
strongest principle here- not only causes causation and genuine
agency and blameworthiness- e.g light bonfire and I go inside to
get a drink or I don’t take the cautions to stop fire from jumping
to neighbours house.
• Forward-looking:
• Benefit- if benefit from situation have duty to remedy bad situation
• Capacity-
• Community
• “In many, probably most, real-world cases of deprivation, assigning remedial
responsibility involved applying multiple criteria, which are also somewhat
opaque” (p. 107)- Miller- indicates that real world scenarios are most likely
to be very complex- difficult to rely on just one principle

Entities:
• Political institutions >>> Week 5
• Nation-states
• Regional governments
 • (Network of) Cities
• International/
transnational institutions
• Corporations
>>> Week 7
• Individuals + informal groups
>>> Week 8
• Others: NGOs, religious organisations,

Ideal theory:
• In this session, we will evaluate the principles on their moral merits
• Not at questions regarding the entities who will be assigned remedial responsibility on
the basis of these principles
• Also not the political realist objection that agents will not comply with their duties-
people are unlikely to abide my remedial responsibility- political realist
objection- can use against any principle- good example is tax evasion- not very
ethical consideration- maybe don’t use in essay
• Pursuit of self-interest, power relations
• Objection is not intrinsic to a particular principle
• Is relevant for each principle
• Requires different ethical reasoning: non-ideal theory
• What to do under conditions of non-compliance?
• How to increase compliance?
• Just going to assume everyone will comply with duties-
going to evaluate these principles on a moral/philosophical
level

The Polluter Pays Principle

Naomi Klein video:

- She explains the Polluter pays Principle, and a number of other issues related to
assigning remedial responsibility for climate change.
- Naomi Klein is a Canadian author, journalist and activist, who has contributed a lot to
the (non-scientific) public discourse about climate change in the form of books,
articles and documentaries. One of her most important works is the critically
acclaimed book This changes everything: Capitalism versus the climate (2014).
- The response to this crisis must be guided by justice unlike the last one-
economic one. This means Polluter Pays- not just fossil fuels companies but also
individuals. Up into and including nationalising these companies if they don’t
cooperate.
- At 1'50" she mentions "350", which refers to 350.org (Links to an external site.), an
important climate change NGO, named after the safe concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere: if we keep this below 350 parts per million, then we will likely keep
global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
- At 2'00" she discusses the divestment movement. Divestment means reducing
investments in the fossil fuel industry, especially by public bodies (such as
universities).
 - Unfortunately, our own university is still investing in the fossil fuel industry. People
and Planet (Links to an external site.) gave the UoB a 2:2 in 2019, and the
nonexistence of ethical investment is an important factor here. Fossil Free UoB (Links
to an external site.) is a student-led movement to convince the UoB to divest from the
fossil fuel industry.
- At 3'37" she mentions Valerie Rockefeller Wayne, a member of the Rockefeller
family, one of the wealthiest families in the world, who says that because their wealth
was made in oil, they have a moral obligation to use that wealth to stop climate
change. Klein says that this is the rationale behind the Polluter Pays Principle, but
note that this is not entirely correct, because the PPP (as such) does not differentiate
between wealthy and poor Polluters - it only looks at moral responsibility for a bad
situation. Rather, I would say that this is an example of how the principle of "benefit"
(i.e. become wealthy) adds moral weight to the PPP: Polluters who became wealthy as
a result of their pollution are under a larger moral obligation to contribute to tackling
climate change than Polluters who have not benefited that much.
- At 4'46": while she says at the beginning of the video that the PPP can be applied to
other agents (e.g. individuals etc.), she now focuses on fossil fuel companies, and is
highly critical of them. Other high-emitting companies are in the cement industry. We
return to corporations in Week 7.

Polluter Pays- slides

- Most intuitive principle- most debated principle in climagte ethics
Basis: Causal and moral responsibility:
- Singer (2002, pp. 27-34): starts from assumption- ‘You broke it, now you fix it!’- if
you emitted GHG you should be responsible for mitigated and adapting climate
change.
- Causal or moral responsibility? Start with question?
• Causal responsibility = bare causation
• Outcome responsibility = causation + genuine agency
• Moral responsibility = causation + genuine agency + blameworthiness
• In all case we have ton of GHG 1) people breathing out 2) caused by poor
Indian farmer irrigating crops with diesel powered generator 3) caused
by someone flying from UK to Spain for holiday.
• If we focus on causal we cant differentiate between three cases cos all
result in ton of GHG in atmosphere. Reason why its emitted doesn’t
matter with causal responsibility.
• Moral responsibility is a stronger criteria- holds less people responbility
for mitigating climate change.
- Problems:
• Young (2011): Blaming people is inappropriate- in many circumstances they
don’t have any alternatives- would just create resentment- wouldn’t
respond well
• Backward-looking principle
- Counterarguments:
• Blameworthiness as a philosophical concept- not just about pointing fingers
at people- if your blameworthy means you did have an alternative- don’t
something intentionally and knowing the consequences.
• In function of remedying the problem
• + setting right the moral imbalance between victim
and perpetrator- this is important- if only look at forward looking
 principles like benefits or ability to pay then this moral imbalance
is irrelevant so we can’t set it right.
• Response to it being a backward looking principle- trying to find
ways of assigning remedial responsibility for problem and if you
caused problem you have responsibility to tackle that problem.
• Forward-looking applications: e.g. carbon tax- if we assume that putting
gasoline in car will become more expensive because the extra money will
be used to help climate change.

Advantages:
- Immediate intuitive appeal- if you break it you have to fix it- intuitive approach
- Widely accepted in climate ethics and politics- in negotiations like Paris agreement,
PPP is very central principle
- Incentive structure:
• Costs attached to polluting activities: incentive to emit less GHGs
• Changes incentive structure- if costs are internalised then gasoline will
become more expensive- monetary incentive to use less gasoline.
- Rich polluters impose risks on poor, vulnerable people
• Creates equality by transferring monetary resources from rich polluters
to poor vulnerable people.
• Corrects injustice
• Corrects inequality

Concerns:
- Practicality:
• Uncertainty regarding attribution of extreme weather events to climate
change, causes and effects
• Reply:
• Practicality does not undermine moral force of the principle- same as
political realist objection- not because people aren’t likely to
comply with their duties under the principle- its that the principle
isn’t the right one to use- only practical implementation concerns
not moral concerns.
• Affects all principles of distribution of burdens- not only PPP but also
ability to pay principle
- Ignorance:
• More complicated issue
• People were excusably ignorant of the fact that their activities may lead to
dangerous climate change- difficult to hold them responsible.
• Reply:
• Widely known since the 1990s- after second half of 20th century
problem pf climate change become increasingly known- since
reports of IPCC- this ignorance at least since 1990s is no longer
excusable.
• Strict liability: bearing costs even if excusably
ignorant

More complicated and relevant issues:

Limitations (1): Deceased polluters and non-anthropogenic
climate change:
 • Emissions have started from at least industrial recolution but many people who
have emitted GHG since then have already died- PPP will assign responsibility to
people who are dead- cant remedy climate change.
• A portion of climate change that cannot be covered by PPP.
• Deceased polluters: emissions since start of
Industrial Revolution
Another limitation:
• Non-anthropogenic climate change:
• IPCC (2013, p. 17): ‘The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to
warming is similar to the observed warming over this period’
• Attribution problem, natural variability and disasters
• If climate change not caused by polluters hard to assign responsibility- as
we have seen climate change we are looking at is completely caused by
humans.
• Still attribution problem

Limitations (2): Legitimate emissions of the disadvantaged:

• The poor Indian farmer cannot be held morally responsible for emissions caused
by irrigation by diesel powered generator- Shue famous for making this point
• Shue (2001, 451): ‘For practically everyone at present, and for the immediate future,
survival requires the use of GHG emissions absorptive capacity. No reasonable,
immediate alternative exists.’ Because our economy is still so reliant on fossil fuels-
its still there and v difficult for poor Indian famer for example to invest in
renewable energy- not alternatives available. Poor people in Britain who need
car to drive kids to school- cant afford an electric car.
• Shue makes distinction between Subsistence versus luxury emissions, but line-
drawing problem- cant be held accountable for subsistence but can for luxury
• Counterarguments:
• Shue (1993, p. 55): ‘Distinctions like the one between needs and wants … are
of course highly contested and messy … To ignore these distinctions,
however, is to discard the most fundamental differences in kind that we
understand’ difficult to draw line between subsistence and luxury
emissions
• Contra arbitrariness: basic rights- would define subsistence in terms of basic
rights- water, food, shelter, adequate clothing- if we define subsistence in
terms of these basic rights then line drawing becomes less arbitrary.
• Problems with homogeneous approach- would throw all emissions whether
subsistence of luxury together- would assign on basis of causal
responsibility and this is a problem- we intuitively feel that person
emitting ton of GHG to Spain is more responsible than Indian farmer or
from breathing. Homogenous approach cannot make this distinction
between the three cases if we don’t differentiate between luxury and
subsistence.

Other principles
- Although PPP has intuitive appeal- has problems- lead people to focus on other
principles- beneficiary and ability to pay
Beneficiary Pays Principle
- principle of benefits when allocating remedial responsibility- even if didn’t cause harm
if you benefitted then you should have to pay for rectification of that harm- includes
people who involuntarily received benefits.
Explanation and advantages:
- People who benefit from the action that causes harm should pay for rectification:
• No causation – even if they did not cause the harm themselves
• Involuntary receipt of benefits: people now benefit from past and current
emissions
- Advantages:
• No fault, forward-looking principle- If benefitted from past or current
emissions
• Appears to avoid the problem of deceased polluters- their emissions we can
assign responsibility to those who benefitted from this pollution in past-
all of developed countries basically as we have all benefitted from
pollution of past generations.
• Oriented towards equality- results in a transfer of monetary resources from
people who have benefitted to those who have suffered from harm.
Objections:
• Why should I pay for something that was not my fault?
• Conflicts with conviction that those who are involved in creating the situation,
should bear the burdens of addressing it
• If I benefit involuntarily from emissions of grandparents- im not at fault
for those emissions- why should I pay?
• No control over causal process- no difference if you had control over process that
caused harm- shouldn’t someone who caused and benefitted shouldn’t they be
held more responsible to those who benefitted but didn’t cause it- needs
distinction between beneficiaries.
• Most beneficiaries of past emissions are dead
• If both A and B benefit from A’s action (which causes harms), how should burdens be
distributed?- A does something that causes harm- A benefits and so does B even
though hasn’t caused harm- A should be held more responsible- same as point
above
• Harm did not occur because of the benefits- it’s a side effect

Ability to Pay Principle- capacity principle

Explanation and advantages:
• Rich people should pay more- irrespective of
whether they caused climate change or not-
irrespective of whether their wealth came about
from polluting environment.
• Advantages:
• Widely accepted in other policy areas-e.g
in taxation- we think that the wealthier
you are the more taxes you should pay
to contribute society.
• Solidarity and equality- solidarity of rich with poor people- equality
because transfers some money from rich to poor people.
 • No-fault principle- not about blaming- about who’s best placed to fix
climate change.

Objections:
- Conflicts with conviction that those who are involved in creating the situation, should
bear the burdens of addressing it- conflicts with the moral principle of moral
responsibility
- Why should I pay for something that is not my fault?
• Reply: on basis of Caney’s article
• Assumption: it is wrong that some bear a burden for a problem that is
not of their doing
• 3 options: the advantaged pay, (rich people) the poor pay, BAU
(business as usual- do nothing- will be the poor and vulnerable
people who will pay as they will suffer the results)- makes sense for
rich people to pay
- Why should clean developers pay anything?
• And why only focus on environment, and not on injustice in a broader sense?
• Whether peoples who’s wealth came about in a clean way- without
polluting should pay anything- weren’t at fault for climate change
• Surely people who became rich by emitting GHG should pay more than
clean developers- Rockefeller family should pay more

Caney’s (2010) hybrid model:

- Final way of allocating remedial responsibility
Structure:
- PPP should still be at centre when allocating remedial responsibility- people
should bare burdens of the effects of their actions- slightly amends principle so
doesn’t push anyone below decent standard of living- poor people pay less or
nothing at all- what he calls poverty sensitive PPP.
- PPP*= poverty-sensitive Polluter Pays Principle:
• Persons should bear the burden of climate change that they have caused
• So long as doing so does not push them beneath a decent standard of living
- The Remainder: effects of GHG that cannot be covered by PPP
• Emissions of the deceased
• Legitimate emissions of the disadvantaged
• Non-anthropogenic climate change
• These 3 sources of harm cannot be covered by poverty sensitive PPP- so
in order to cover these he invokes the history sensible ATP principle.
- ATP** = The history-sensitive Ability to pay principle:
• The duties to bear the Remainder should be borne by the wealthy but we
should distinguish between two groups:
• (i) Those whose wealth came about in unjust ways
• (ii) Those whose wealth did not come about in unjust ways
• Responds to objection of ATP principle discussed before
Advantages and policy implications:
• Advantages:
• Retains best of PPP and ATP without the disadvantages- it does entail that if
you caused or contributed to problem you should bear at least some of the
blame- but solves issue of remainder by invoking ability to pay principle.
 • UNFCCC art. 3: ’Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective
capabilities’-in line with political principle in climate change negotiations-
us as a global community have common responsibility to tackle climate
change. Also differentiated as we are all to a different degree of causing
the problem.
• Hybrid model informs policy instruments:
• Carbon taxes designed to meet PPP* and ATP**
• Funding for sustainable development, technology transfer, and adaptation-
funding for this can all be done on basis of hybrid model to meet poverty
sensitive and history sensitive

• Whether Caney is successful is still not decided- but an important idea

Summary of Caney’s approach- from quiz:

- Apply the PPP- poverty sensitive polluter pays principle
- Identify the remainder
- To cover the remainder we apply the ATP- history sensitive ability to pay principle

Lecture 5:
Governance

Introduction:
- This week is about the responsibilities of governments and (trans)national institutions
in tackling climate change.
- First, we will look at some general facts about the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the most important climate governance
instrument.
- Next, we will look at the 2015 Paris Agreement.
- Finally, we will discuss some ethical and political philosophical issues in relation to
the responsibilities of governments and political institutions.
- How institutions are tackling (or not tackling) climate change

UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)

- It is the document, signed and ratified in the early 1990s, which "frames" the
international negotiations on climate change. The huge annual international meetings
(Conferences of the Parties) are organised under the UNFCCC, and the Paris
Agreement is the current most important document to implement the UNFCCC.
- Objective= to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system-
original 1992 document states that the objective of the convention is to achieve the
 stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would
prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system
-
-
History up to the Paris agreement:
- 1979: 1st World Climate Conference- already back then there was awareness
about global environmental problems.
- 1987: Montreal Protocol- v successful
- 1988: set-up of IPCC- the intergovernmental panel on climate change- more than
1200 scientists around the world who come together periodically to review latest
climate scienes
- 1990: IPCC’s 1st AR- assessmenr report- periodical reports which are huge-
review latest climate sciences
1992: UNCED (Earth Summit - Rio) three documents made:
- CBD- convention on biological diversity- fight biodiversity loss
- FCCC- framework convention on climate change
- CCD- convention on combating something (not sure about acronym)
- 1994: UNFCCC: Entry into force
- 1997: COP 3 - Kyoto Protocol- first agreement which contained legally binding
emission reduction targets. Problem is that protocol was insufficient and not up
to task- resulting in 0.06 degrees c global warming- very low amount of global
warming has been averted by it.
- 2009: COP 15 - Copenhagen Accord- the intention was to come up with a
successor to the Kyoto protocol which will end in 2020. Problem is Copenhagen
one was disastrous- lots of disagreements between countries.
- 2013/14: IPCC’s 5th AR
- 2015: COP 21 - Paris Agreement

UNFCC: the convention (1992):

• Original convention
• Parties to the Convention (197 parties- all countries around world plus European
union):
• Split into two groups- annex 1 and non-annex 1
• Annex I: OECD members + EITs- rich countries
• Non-Annex I: developing countries (including 49 LDCs)- poor/developing
countries
• Observer organisations: UNDP, UNEP, IPCC, IGOs (>100, inc. OECD, IEA),
NGOs (>1880)
• Art. 2 (objective): The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related
legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilisation of
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level
should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to
adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not
threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable
manner.

Art. 3: Principles:
 - Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities
- Attention to specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties
- Precautionary principle: lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason
for postponing measures
- The Parties have a right to, and should, promote sustainable development. Climate
policies and measures should be integrated with national development programmes,
taking into account that economic development is essential for adopting measures to
address climate change - can’t expect more countries to adopt measures to stop
climate change- don’t have money. Climate policies should be integrated with
other strategies of poverty alleviation.
- The Parties should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international
economic system that would lead to sustainable economic growth and development in
all Parties.

The Paris Agreement and beyond

- Signed in 2015- Forms basis of current global climate governance

Background:
• Finding successor to Kyoto protocol- ends in 2020
• Mitigation, adaptation and financing from 2020 onwards
• 12 December 2015: Adopted by consensus
• Signed by all Parties- all countries
• Ratified by 189 Parties
• 4 November 2016: Entry into force
• 4 August 2017: official notification of withdrawal of USA
• 20 November 2020: effective withdrawal of USA

• Countries who have not ratified: Angola, Eritrea, Iran,

Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, South Sudan, Turkey, Yemen- small developing countries
with low GHG. Only important countries (more developed with larger amount of
GHG) are Iran and Turkey.

Article 2: objective
• Content of Paris Agreement- certain articles that are important for ethicists-
article 2
• 1. This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its
objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the
context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by:
• (a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C
above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature
increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognising that this would
significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. Affirms goal of
Copenhagen accord? - keeping temp below 2 degrees celcius- first time
saying should limit temp to 1.5.
• (b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and
foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a
manner that does not threaten food production.
• (c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse
gas emissions and climate resilient development.
 • 2. This Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of common
but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different
national circumstances.

(Intended) Nationally determined contributions:

• Article 3: As nationally determined contributions to the global response to climate
change, all Parties are to undertake and communicate ambitious efforts … with the
view to achieving the purpose of this Agreement as set out in Article 2.
• Article 4.3: Each Party’s successive nationally determined contribution will represent
a progression beyond the Party’s then current nationally determined contribution and
reflect its highest possible ambition, reflecting its common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national
circumstances.
• Basis of post-2020 global emissions reduction commitments
• Include:
• Actions a national government intends to take up under the Paris Agreement
• Emissions reductions, investment in renewable energy, adaptation
• Contributions towards $100 billion a year in total climate finance by 2020

Evaluation of INDCs (1)

Global total:

- - First graph- Depicts emission

reductions that are necessary in 2030 to keep global warming below 2 degrees
Celsius before 2100- green part is for 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Global overview:
 - In the world only 2 countries that are compatible with 1.5 degrees Celsius
warming- morocco and The Gambia- small countries that don’t have a lot of
emissions.
- Couple of countries that have INDCs compatible with 2 degree Celsius- e.g India,
Kenya ….
- largest group of countries are insufficient- their INDCs will result in a world
that’s 2-3 degrees Celsius warmer than pre industrial temperatures.

- Large parts of globe are critically insufficient- red

Evaluation of INDCs (4): EU27- European Union

• 27 member states- without UK
 • Emission reduction targets in
comparison with 1990 levels:
• 20% by 2020 (actual
reduction: 23% in 2017)
• 40% by 2030 but now 55%
by 2030
• Insufficient: not consistent with
objective of Paris Agreement
• Requirement: 65%
reduction by 2030 and 95% reduction by 2050
• Emissions neutrality by 2050 (see von der Leyen- the leaders of EU has
given a speech in which he wants to increase climate ambitions of EU and
wants to become a front runner on climate change- put forward goal of
emissions neutrality by 2050- ted ), but currently 91-94%
• Currently implemented policies: on track to meet 40% reduction by 2030 (and
possibly 48%) – optimistic estimation is that we will meet 48% by 2030

TED TALK- Ursula von der Leyen

- Fighting climate change has become the greatest responsibility of our times- in
Europe they have set their objective-to become first carbon neutral continent by
2050.
- President of European commission- secured European green deal
Evaluation of INDCs (5): USA
- Critically insufficient
- US emissions in 2020 will be lower as
a result of the COVID-19 pandemic,
but the Trump Administration’s
continuous rollback of climate policy
and its response to the pandemic will
counteract some of the drop in
emissions. The administration has not
initiated a green recovery but has instead used the pandemic as justification to
continue relaxing environmental regulations, allowing polluting industries to emit
more greenhouse gases during the crisis and exempting them from penalties for
violating these rules. The CAT continues to rate the US as “Critically insufficient”.

Evaluation of INDCs (6): China

• Peak emissions before 2030 and
carbon neutrality before 2060
• However: highly insufficient: not
translated into targets +
continuous support for coal
industry

Evaluation of Paris Agreement:

- Ban Ki-Moon: “The Paris Agreement is a monumental triumph for people and our
planet. It sets the stage for progress in ending poverty, strengthening peace and
ensuring a life of dignity and opportunity for all.”
 - Giza Gaspar Martins (chair of LDCs): “It is the best outcome we could have hoped
for, not just for the least-developed countries, but for all the citizens of the world.”
- James Hansen (NASA): “It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises.
As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued
to be burned.”
- Helen Szoke (Oxfam Australia): “This deal offers a frayed lifeline to the world’s
poorest and most vulnerable people.”

Beyond Paris:
- Since 2015- since Paris agreement- was first political document to enshrine 1.5
degrees Celsius target.
- 2018: IPCC’s Special report on Global Warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius
- 2019: COP 25 Madrid (Chile)
- 2020/21: COP 2026 Glasgow
- 2022: IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report
- 2023 and every five years thereafter: global stocktake

Ethical and Political philosophical issues

Collective action problems:

Focus on states?

- States and political institutions seem the only causally efficacious agents in solving a
collective action problem
- However, also objections to a focus on states
- Do states cause climate change?
- Harris (2010, 26): ‘While states are not the proximate causes of climate change (after
all, a state exists only as a set of institutions based on certain ideas), and while we
know that the actions of people and machines are what actually cause climate change,
the problem has been viewed as something for states (that is, governments to work
together to investigate and to solve).’
- Particularism: statist approach underestimates the significance of social and cultural
diversity within nations
- Universalism: statist approach gives insufficient attention to problems of global
justice and considers these as problems of international justice

Causal efficacy:
• Role of institutions in collective action problems: capacity to fix the problem:
• Scale: public transportation infrastructure
 • Facilitation: home insulation, renewable energy
• Regulation: carbon tax, prohibitions, traffic rules
• In general: coordination, cooperation and ensuring compliance in collective
action problems
• Lichtenberg (2014, 9): ‘What states do must be carried out ultimately by
individuals’
• Ostrom (2010, 551): ‘Even government policies need to rely to a great extent on
willing cooperation by citizens’

Nation-states and transnational institutions:

Delegated authority model (Gardiner 2011, 53-54)
• According to a long tradition in political theory, political institutions and their leaders
are said to be legitimate because, and to the extent that, citizens delegate their own
responsibilities and powers to them.
• The basic idea is that political authorities act in the name of the citizens in order to
solve problems that either cannot be addressed, or else would be poorly handled, at
the individual level, and that this is what, most fundamentally, justifies both their
existence and their specific form.
• If the attempt to delegate effectively has failed, then the responsibility falls back on
the citizens again, either to solve the problems themselves or, if this is not possible, to
create new institutions to do the job. If they fail to do so, then they are subject to
moral criticism, for having failed to discharge their original responsibilities.

Tragedy of the commons (1)

Concept:
• Self-interested, rational individuals have tendency to deplete a common natural
resource
• International level: it is rational for the State not to reduce its emissions, whatever the
Rest of the World does:
• Rest of the World reduces its emissions: climate change avoided anyway
• Rest of the World doesn’t reduce its emissions: climate change happens
anyway
• However: problematic conceptualisation of climate change
• Cumulative problem
• Harms already occurring

Tragedy of the commons (2)

Solutions:
• Ostrom (1977):
• Privatization
• External force
• Self-governance
• External force:
• Hardin (1968):
’Mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon’
• Strong transnational institutions?
• Goes against national self-interest
• Gardiner (2006):
• States are not isolated: economic success depends on co-operation with others
Problem with the world order:
• Multilateral world order:
• State sovereignty and self-interest of nation-states
• Geopolitical interests
• Biermann (2012, p. 6): ‘the human species, as main driving force of the
Anthropocene, is in itself utterly divided in wealth, health, living standards,
education, and most other indicators that define wellbeing’
• Global governance institutions:
• Power imbalances
• Fragmentation + inefficiency
• UNFCCC:
• Consensus decision-making
• Entry-into-force requirement: 55 Parties accounting for +55% of global
emissions

Democratic deficit (1)

Problems (Held and Hervey 2011)
• Short-termism: imposition of changes on people now
to tackle a problem in the future
• Self-referring decision-making: own citizens versus victims
of climate change in other countries
• Interest group concentration: lobbying by private corporations, interest groups,
individuals
• Weak multilateralism: avoiding compliance with international decisions if this
weakens relationship with electorate
Democratic deficit (2)
Authoritarian regime as alternative?
• Authoritarian regimes as an alternative?
• No: fewer incentives to adopt sustainable policies
• Advantages of democracies:
• Better access to information, fewer restrictions, greater transparency
• Free research
• Pressure groups, social movements
• Deliberative democracy: good leadership is not only policy but also
education/deliberation

From quiz- Are nation- states and political institutions the most efficacious actors in the fight
against climate change?
YES
- Yes, states and political institutions have the scale to make a difference, for example
in providing cycling infrastructure
- Yes, states and political institutions have the capacity to facilitate the transition
towards more sustainable societies, for example by subsidising greener production
methods
- Yes, states and political institutions can implement regulations that are beneficial for
the environment. For example, some cities (including Birmingham) have banned old
and polluting cars from their centres in order to decrease air pollution
 - Yes, states and political institutions can coordinate cooperation and ensure
compliance in huge collective action problems like climate change
NO
- No, because states and political institutions are basically ideas and do not directly
cause climate change. What states decide, must ultimately be carried out by
individuals and corporations
- No, for government policies to be effective, they have to be supported by citizens, and
rely on the willing cooperation by the citizens

Lecture 6: The economics of climate change

Lecture 7: Actions by individuals

Introduction:
- Unilateral action (+Cowspiracy)- actions that individuals can undertake to reduce
own carbon dioxide emissions
- Individual causal inefficacy- argument that unilateral action don’t actually make
any difference- still prevalent in climate change ethics now and also in public
discourse.
- Promotional action- diff from unilateral action- not about reducing GG emissions
directly but more about political actions that individuals can undertake to
improve situation- e.g joining climate protest march

Collective action problems

- A focus exclusively on individuals will not be sufficient to tackle climate change-
cant deny responsibility that corporations and institutions have.

Unilateral action:
- did carbon footprint calculator- could put that in essay? - mins was 218%- way
above average- WWF carbon calculator
- unilateral action- what actions individuals can do to reduce their carbon
footprint

Individual carbon footprint:

- Components: travel, home, stuff, food- four main
categories of where individuals emit
- Direct energy use by households= 38% of overall national
emissions- in US- individuals and households are
responsible for almost 40% of overall national
emissions- not insignificant.
 - ‘Low hanging fruits’ (easy actions for individuals to do- easily achievable- low
hanging cos easy to pick) emissions reductions:
• Personal emissions: 20-25%- could go down 20-25%
• Equivalent of national emissions (USA): 10%
• These are easiest actions that people can take- so not reducing well-being
or anything- there are more intense actions people can take e.g buying
electric vehicle but that’s not low hanging fruits.

Travel:
• Don’t use a personal car- main components of the emissions by travel
• And if you have to use a car:
• Vehicle maintenance- check tyre pressure every month- can reduce
fossil fuel consumption
• Eco-driving- don’t accelerate aggressively
• Reduce highway speed to 90km/h or 55 mph
• Very small change of habits can lead to significant result
• Carpool
• Walk, cycle
• Reduce public transportation
• Reduce air travel- one of main contributors to carbon footprint of travel
• Return trip Birmingham-Barcelona: 400-500 kg of CO2
• Ancillary benefits-not only have effect on environment: stress reduction, physical
fitness, opportunities for social contact
• Walking has positive externality for society

Home:
• Reduce heating and cooling- put on a sweater
• Improve insulation
• Take (short) showers
• Install efficient water heater
• Turn off lights and electric
appliances when not in use
• Replace light bulbs
• Wash clothes on colder temperatures and less often
• Dry clothes on the line- clothes dryer has high
energy consumption
• Use a dishwasher (but only operate it when it’s full)
• Reduce Google Searches (1-10 grams per search) or use Ecosia, and watch less videos
online
• Go live in a smaller house
• Ancillary benefits: saving money- using less energy will mean less expensive

Food (1): Meat

• Specifically meat from ruminants- mainly beef
• GHG emissions from livestock supply chain:
• FAO (2013): 14.5% of total emissions
• Goodland & Anhang (2009):
51% of total emissions
• Scarborough et al. (2014): average CO2 for
2,000 kcal diet:
 • High meat-eaters (>100g):
7.19 kg/day = 2.6 t/year
• Low meat-eaters: (<50g):
4.67 kg/day = 1.7 t/year
• Fish-eaters: 3.91 kg/day = 1.4 t/year
• Vegetarians: 3.81 kg/day = 1.4 t/year
• Vegans: 2.89 kg/day = 1 t/year
Food (2): Other
• Other actions:
• Eat more raw food that doesn’t need cooking- cooking needs energy
• Buy fresh food (frozen food’s energy consumption is high)
• Shop local for locally produced food- but what about locally produced beef-
more important to reduce meat consumption than stop for locally
produced food.
• Avoid air-freighted food (asparagus, green beans, berries, kiwis)
• Reduce food waste (as much as 8-10% of GHG emissions)- maybe eating
meat is too difficult- reducing food waste is very easy
• Ancillary benefits: reduction of land use requirements for food production,
health benefits- eating fresh produce and reducing meat consumption have
health benefits- red meat eaters have 25% higher change of
cardiovascular diseases.

Stuff:
• 26-38% of individual carbon footprint
• Entire lifecycle of goods: product design, extracting raw resources, production, use,
disposal
• E.g. production of clothes:
• Synthetic top: 5.5 kgs CO2
• Cotton T-shirt: 2.1 kgs CO2
• Pair of jeans: 3.4 kgs CO2
• Even clothes produce carbon footprint
• Rethink
• Reduce
• Reuse
• Recycle
• Ancillary benefits: less consumer anxiety,
financial savings, less problems with maintaining
stuff and getting rid of trash

Offsetting:
- Asking people to reduce carbon footprint to not engage in any GHG emissions at
all may be too demanding- impossible in current fossil fuel economy we live-
might also reduce freedoms people have too much
- Example (London-Marrakech (1 t CO2))- return trip will generate one tonne of
CO2 emissions. May still have to fly to Marrakech cos have family there- too
demanding to say don’t travel there
- Offsetting- pay organisation to prevent this one tonne from entering the
atmosphere somewhere else- e.g giving women in india improved cookstoves-
would only cost 18 euros.
- Neutralising co2 emissions from flight
 - www.fairclimatefund.nl : - only NGO that should use- approved by Oxfam
- Improved cookstoves for women (India): €18.15
- Cookstoves for coffee farmers (Ethiopia): €18.15
- Clean cooking with biogas (India):
€21.18
- www.Atmosfair.de
- www.myclimate.org
- Some organisations take advantage of situation- say only pay small amount for
offset and doesn’t actually happen
Evaluation:
• Advantages:
• Cost effectiveness- reducing 1 tonne of CO2 in developed country is much
more expensive than in developing country
• Neutralising emissions- emissions generated by return flight are cancelled
out- not contributing to climate change if you offset your emissions.
• Transfer from rich to poor: technology and wealth- e.g giving women in india
better cook stoves- helping them increase their well-being.
• Objections:
• Additionality- very technical objection- means that if women india had
invested in improved cook stoves themselves or if government had done
that then project doesn’t have additional value as those reductions would
have happened anyway- reductions have to be additional for offsetting to
be legitimate.
• Carbon colonialism?
• Enables perpetuation of unsustainable lifestyles in developed world -
very easy way out for rich individuals
• Passes on responsibility for reducing emissions to developing
countries- don’t have to reduce emission themselves just have to
pay other people to reduce their emissions- this objection can be
avoided if we limit the emissions for which offsetting is an ethical
practice to only the avoidable emissions.
• E.g a flight to visit family could be justified
• Fine/fee argument

Adaptation and compensation:

• Alleviating poverty:
• Increasing resilience
• Decreasing vulnerability
• Compensating for harms
 Futility?
• Pogge (2008, 7-8): ‘Seeing the global poor as one vast homogenous mass, we
overlook that saving ten children from a painful death by hunger does make a
real difference, all the difference for these children, and that this difference is
quite significant even when many other children remain hungry.’- v
compelling counter argument against futility thesis- if can give 10 pounds
or can install water pump in Africa that really makes a difference to
people involved- haven’t solved world poverty but have made a real
difference. If we see global poverty as massive problem then our
individual contribution might seem futile and insignificant but we can
 actually make a real difference for real people involved and this I will
argue is the case in climate change as well.
 However:
• Additionality- we as individuals need to do things that will not be done by
government of African country for example.
• Off-loading responsibilities- we ourselves need to reduce our own emissions
as well as helping poor people and their vulnerability to climate change.

COWSPIRACY- can watch 15 minute summary- https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=dSjE8xw_-Dg&feature=emb_logo
 2’00”-6’00”: impact of hamburger and impact of animal agriculture
 8’56”-9’42”: impact of grass-fed beef in comparison with industrial beef
 11’16”-13’03”: population and consumption

Individual Causal Inefficacy

- main objection against unilateral actions is that many people believe that as an
individual you cannot make a difference- this is called individual causal
inefficacy argument.

The problem (1):

• Hiller (2011, 349):
‘most or all common individual actions, and even full individual lives, are too
causally insignificant to make any difference with regard to climate change’-
whatever we as individuals do- effect will be tiny- difference we will make is v
difficult to measure.
• Sinnott-Armstrong (2005):
• P. 289: ‘My individual act is neither necessary nor sufficient for global
warming’- uses example of driving SUV for pleasure
• P. 293: ‘global warming and climate change occur on such a massive scale
that my individual driving makes no difference to the welfare of anyone’
 Ronald Sandler (2010, p. 168): problem of inconsequentialism:
‘given that a person’s contribution, although needed (albeit not necessary), is nearly
inconsequential to addressing the problem and may require some cost from the
standpoint of the person’s own life, why should the person make the effort,
particularly when it is uncertain (or even unlikely) whether others will do so?’
 As individual we do not make much difference in regard to climate change.

The problem (2):

• V prevalent objection in climate change literature- common assumption in
public discourse.
• Others making a similar argument: Johnson (2003), Cripps (2013)
• Conclusions:
• Individuals cannot be ‘blamed’ for global warming on the basis of the
(contribution to)
harm principle
• Individual unilateral actions are ineffective

Counterarguments (1): Do individuals emissions make a difference?:

 • Hiller (2011, 349): if individual actions are not causes of climate change, then the
cause would have to be ‘some metaphysical odd emergent entity’- if my emissions do
not cause climate change or are insignificant then everyone’s are insignificant- so
what causes climate change if all our individual emissions are insignificant. As a
collective they cause climate change?- But how can that be the case that
individually they don’t cause climate change at all- hiller says v strange position
to take.
• Peeters et al. (2015, 78): ‘the infinitesimal contribution of a single greenhouse gas
emission is so tiny as to be imperceptible, but it is not zero’- the crux of the matter-
individuals GHG might be tiny- might be v difficult to trace effects but its not
zero- not same as not emitting GHG molecule.
• Effects:
• Nolt (2011): GHG emissions of an average US citizen cause the serious
suffering and/or deaths of about two future persons.
• Hiller (2011): a Sunday outing in an SUV is the moral equivalent of ruining
some future person’s afternoon
• However: attribution problem in climate change- cant attribute one specific
extreme weather event e.g a heatwave to a climate change- so cant track
back to individual persons emissions. Emissions of a person can seem tiny
but can contribute to a lot of suffering.

Counterarguments (1): Tiny effects are relevant!

• Are tiny effects morally relevant?
• What would be the cut-off point between tiny effects that are not relevant and
non-tiny effects that would become relevant?- when would an effect be tiny
and when would it not be.
• There is an infinitely large difference between a tiny effect and no effect
 You can choose to be a (tiny) part of the problem or a (tiny) part of the solution- your
choice whether you want to contribute to climate change or be part of solution.
• Small victories:
• Futility: every child saved from hunger is a child saved- cant alleviate world
poverty but every child saved from hunger has v important effect.
• Every tree planted will store carbon dioxide and contributes to preventing
desertification, soil erosion, heat islands, …
• Every prevented gram of carbon dioxide does not exacerbate climate change-
wont make climate change worse- important to keep in mind

Counterarguments (2): Are individual emissions necessary or sufficient for climate change?:
• Necessity: the problem of overdetermination- even without my GHG emissions, CC
will happen anyway because so many people are emitted co2.
• Sufficiency: taken separately, individual emissions are faultless- my individual
emissions do not cause climate change so our faultless.
• However:
• Mistakenly sees climate change as a threshold problem- mistakenly see CC
as an on off switch- that it either happens or not- e.g take example of a
wine glass overflowing- necessity says if glass is already overflowing if I
add more wine doesn’t make a difference- false reasoning- if add drop of
wone to already overflowing glass will contribute to more flooding or
table. Its an accumulative effect- not on off.
• Tiny, but non-zero, emissions exacerbate climate change
 • Ignores context of 7.8 billion emitters
• McKinnon (2012, 103): ‘perhaps from now on every token act of emitting
greenhouse gases creates risks of serious climate change harms’- every GHG
molecule put in air will contribute to exacerbating CC which will increase
risk of serious harm in future.

Counterarguments (3): Spill over effects of unilateral direct actions:

• Another counterargument to individual causal inefficacy argument is that
effects of unilateral actions to reduce GHG emissions is not just about
recuing emissions also spill over effects.
• Effects of individual acts not limited to reduction of GHG emissions:
• Also: signaling to government
• Also: example-setting and role modelling- e.g putting solar panels on
roof- talk to neighbors and tell them not complicated or expensive
which might motivate others to look into solar panels.
• Also: ancillary benefits for individuals- e.g saving money, time, or
increasing health.
• However:
• Sinnott-Armstrong (2005, 292): ’One problem here is that my acts are
not that influential. … On a realistic view, however, it is unlikely that
anyone would drive wastefully if I did and would not if I did not.’
• Counterargument:
• Empirical question- some psychological literature have
pointed out that social norms has an impact on what you
do.
• Is this objection valid for political actions as well?- if I join a
protest march of 10,000- if I join will that make a
difference? He should also assume that political actions
don’t make a difference- his argument is people should
engage in political actions.

Armstrong- for view that individuals make no difference- maybe use him for
essay?

Promotional action
- Contrasts with unilateral actions as don’t reduce GHG directly but only
promotes political action or other individuals for undertaking action.
- Promotional duties or actions are actions that individual can undertake to bring about
a collective scheme/institution to solve a collective action problem.

Why promotional duties?:

• Cripps (2013), Sinnott-Armstrong (2005), Johnson (2003): the three people that say
individuals don’t make difference- good people to use for essay?
• Climate change is a collective action problem – unilateral actions are
ineffective
• Therefore, promotional duties to attempt to bring about the collective scheme-
should rather focus on promotional duties
 Rawls (1999, 99): duty of justice:
• Our main duty of justice is to support and to comply with just institutions
that exist and apply to us
 • To further just arrangements not yet established, at least when this can be done
without too much cost to ourselves.

Counterarguments (1): Are institutions the solution to collective action problems?:

• Don’t deny that political institutions are necessary- they provide the scale
• Traditional solution to collective action problems: creating or changing institutions
• Scale: traffic infrastructure
• Need for facilitation: home insulation, renewable energy
• Regulation: companies, carbon tax, prohibitions, traffic rules
• However:
• Rawlsian duty of justice:
• Is just one of the natural duties
• People have to abide by what just institutions tell them to do
• Lichtenberg (2014, 9): ‘What states do must be carried out ultimately by
individuals’
• Effectiveness of institutions?
• International collective action problem
• Puts into question whether institutions are the solution to collective action
problems- think that we need institutions but also need individual action
and action by corporations to solve collective action problems.

Counterarguments (2): Exclusively political action?:

• Cripps (2013, 145): Promotional duties are not ‘throw-away acts’: ‘even if they don’t
succeed straight off, they can still contribute to a stockpile of impetus for collective
change… They can be added to, complemented, and improved, both by the individual
and by others.’
• Objection: scepticism- sceptical about objection- is it really that
significant if I join protest march of 1 million people.
• Objection: inconsistency with ineffectiveness of unilateral duties- This
is an inconsistent argument if you believe individual unilateral
actions are ineffective in causal insignificance then you should
make same argument for individual promotional actions.
Armstrong is inconsistent. Counterargument is that both are
significant- might make tiny difference but both individual actions
and promotional duties are causally significant.
 Sinnott-Armstrong (2005, 292): ‘My driving a gas-guzzler for fun will not undermine
my devotion to the cause of getting the government to do something about global
warming’- doesn’t undermine my effort to get government to undertake collective
action.
• Hourdequin (2010): moral integrity recommends congruence between one’s
actions and positions at the personal and political levels- against Armstrong-
doesn’t make any sense to drive around in SUV and then write letter to
parliament that they should take action to solve climate change- not a
good expression or moral integrity.
 In sum, both are necessary:
• Unilateral actions: first-order responsibilities: mitigate, enable to adapt,
compensate
• Promotional duties: second-order responsibilities
Second-order responsibilities: Collective action and ensuring compliance (Caney 2014):
• Second-order responsibilities:
• Responsibilities of some agents to ensure that others comply with their first-
order responsibilities (of mitigation, enabling adaptation, compensation)-
enforcing compliance
• Responsibilities to create possibilities for some new first-order responsibilities
that they previously lacked (enablement)
• Responses to non-compliance:
• Design social and political contexts to enable greater compliance
• Take up the slack- if some people aren’t able to reduce GHG then part of
your second order responsibility that this is taken up by yourself or other
people.
 Tasks: Enforcement, (Dis)incentivization, Enablement, Creating norms, Undermining
resistance, Civil disobedience, Demographic policy

Second-order responsibilities: Who? (Caney 2014):

 Attribution of second-order responsibilities:
• “those who can make a valuable difference”
• “those with the power to compel or induce or enable others to comply with
their first-order responsibilities
• = Power/responsibility Principle
 Obvious actors: governments and international institutions- can generate regulations
and carbon taxes and subsidies for solar panels. Clear second-order
responsibilities.
 Less obvious actors, for example:
• Enablement: research councils, university science departments, urban planners
• Norm-creation: church leaders, poets, charismatic individuals, communicators
• Undermining resistance: climate scientists, science journalists, educators

Lecture 8: The motivational gap

The motivational gap=
- The fact that even though we know climate change we will damaging effects- we
haven’t been motivated to tackle it in the past
- Although climate change manifests itself as an urgent and severe moral problem,
current global action undertaken to tackle it are inadequate
- Standard explanations for the motivational gap: our inadequate moral judgement
system and self-interest
- The role of moral disengagement in connecting these standard explanations
- Strategies to address the motivational gap

Overview:
1. Introduction
2. 2 explanations for the motivational gap
3. Meta-ethics and moral psychology
 4. Moral disengagement in climate change
5. Addressing the motivational gap

2 Explanations for the motivational gap

The motivational gap:

• The motivational gap:
• The discrepancy between threat climate change poses and inadequate
action we have seen. Between 2020 and 2030 is going to be crucial to
tackle climate change.
• Despite severity that climate change poses we have seen inadequate
action- the case on all levels- going to focus on motivational gap on
individual level- people know cc will pose threat to human lives yet still
eat meat, drive cars etc. Why is that? Why is there a gap between the
severity of the problem and the inadequate action.
• Threat climate change poses to human lives and rights + urgency of required
actions
(see W2 on impacts)
Versus
• Inadequate action at all levels
(see e.g. W5 on climate governance)
2 Explanations:
• Climate change as an unprecedented challenge and moral judgement system is
inadequate to explain it- very big collective action problem- we see that our
moral judgement system about climate change is inadequate to explain
climate change.
• Competing sources of motivation/akrasia- the fact that people for other
reasons want to go on holiday even though they know its bad for
environment- akrasia is weakness of will

First explanation:
Complexity of climate change and inadequacy of moral judgement system:
- Climate change is too complex- our moral system is inapt to deal with these
problems
- Jamieson (2010, 436-437): ‘climate change is not a matter of a clearly identifiable
individual acting intentionally so as to inflict an identifiable harm on another
identifiable individual, closely related in time and space’ this is true to some extent-
cant deny this is the case- attribution problem- fact that one extreme weather
event hard to trace back to climate change let alone track back to ghg emissions
of one individual- the causal chain between GHG emissions, extreme weather
event leading to people dying or suffering is very complex in climate change.
- E.g. the attribution problem in climate change (see Week 2)
- Markowitz & Shariff (2012, 243): ‘the human moral judgement system is not well
equipped to identify climate change - a complex, large-scale and unintentionally
caused phenomenon - as an important moral imperative’
- Difference is- if punch someone in face there is a real causal connection between
me punching and their nose being broken- not case in climate change- causal
connection/chain is more complex and vaguer. (use own example if using this in
essay). Difficult to be motivated to actually tackle climate change.
 - It’s an incomplete explanation- doesn’t explain everything that’s at issue here-
one argument for this opinion is that there is a lot of counterexamples:
- Counterexamples: Slavery, Ozone depletion
- Slavery- was also a very complex collective action problem with causes and
effects being spread all over world- yet we were still able to abolish slavery- some
of it was due to protests and boycotts of British consumers of slave sugar- could
give example of black civil rights or holocaust? Not denying there is still human
trafficking- but at least the slave trade of 18th century was abolished.
- Ozone layer- in 80s entire world came together to ban chloroflurol carbons in
industrial processes- also a large-scale global problem. We were able to address
the problem.
- Yet not able to tackle climate change

First explanation:
Objections:
• Not sure about the causal process are really the Perpetrators, victims and harm
unidentifiable? Unintentional? – we see the attribution problem- we know to
certain extent extreme weather events are caused by climate change- isn’t that
rather clear? Perpetrators- we know GHG emissions are contributing to climate
change- so you know its contributing to problem.
• Climate change is not only a matter of remote effects, but of near effects as well:
• The first explanation says there is a lot of distance between cause and
effect- example of Fairbourne- village in Wales threatened by climate
change and sea level rise. Predicated that in 2054 (not sure) Fairborne will
be completely given back to the sea- not the case that the ethics of climate
change only take place on the other side of the globe- has been observed
across all continents.
• Causes: global consumption elites
• Effects: ‘on all continents and across major ocean regions, significant impacts
have now been observed’ (IPCC 2014, p. 1010)
 Individual contributions to large aggregate harms
• They are much less easy to make judgements about- but on other hand we
do know individuals contribute to CC.
• Hiller (2011, 349): if individual actions are not causes of climate change, then
the cause would have to be ‘some metaphysical odd emergent entity’
• Peeters et al. (2015, 78): ‘the infinitesimal contribution of a single greenhouse
gas emission is so tiny as to be imperceptible, but it is not zero’

- First explanation is incomplete- does contribute to motivational gap can’t deny

that- but doesn’t completely explain motivational gap

Second explanation:
Competing sources of motivation
• The fact we want to have holiday in Spain, so we fly there
• the second explanation of the motivational gap holds that people are also motivated to
pursue their own happiness. People have been "indoctrinated" to define happiness in
terms of materialistic goals. Unfortunately, these materialistic goals conflict with
goals of environmental conservation and tackling climate change.
• Kant (1785, pp. 17-18):
 •A person feels a powerful counterweight to morality; a counterweight that is
rooted in one’s needs and inclinations, the entire satisfaction of which he sums
up under the name happiness- Says we have moral principles but a person
feels a powerful counterweight to these principles
• However, reason and morality are strict: they issue their precepts without
compromise- However we can’t just place our principles aside-
inconsistency between
• Consequently, there arises a natural dialectic - a propensity to rationalise
against those strict laws of duty and to cast doubt upon their validity, purity
and strictness, to make them better suited to our wishes and inclinations- we
are trying to fudge morality to make sure there is no consistency between
happiness and our moral principles
 Competing sources of motivation in climate change:
• Self-interest: pursuit of happiness and demandingness of morality- happiness
has come to be identified as the pursuit of material things- materialism,
consumerism e.g eating meat and going on holiday. On other hand
morality is quite demanding- difficult to reduce our contribution. We
emit GHG by breathing and farting.
• Akrasia and self-protection- akrasia is weakness of will- morality has its
principles but we are not always strong enough to abide by these
principles.

Second explanation:
The dominant social paradigm: the liberal-capitalist worldview
• Pursuit of happiness has been narrowed down to materialism- the driver of this
is the dominant social paradigm- the fact we all strive for economic growth in
society.
• The pursuit of happiness has been narrowed down to materialism by socio-cultural
context of liberal-capitalism
• Emphasis on individual freedom:
• Kilbourne et al. (2002, p. 197): ‘freedom has been reduced to freedom to
participate in the market, i.e., freedom to consume’
• Peeters et al. (2015, p. 101): ‘self-interested pursuit of happiness has tacitly
become equated with the accumulation of wealth and consumption, which are
regarded as having intrinsic value’
• Hence, pursuit of happiness equated with materialism
• Freedom has been reduced to freedom to consume- that’s the capitalist’s
aspect.
• Happiness has become associated with accumulation of wealth-
• Moral responsibility for climate change implies that individual lives of luxury
emitters are ‘morally outrageous’ (Garvey 2010, p. 99)
• Peeters et al. (2015, p. 103): consumption and materialistic freedoms have
gained inviolable status – are excluded from moral evaluation
• We consider consumption to be a very private enterprise- we talk about
consumer freedom as something we shouldn’t attack or reduce.

Meta-ethics and moral psychology

 - Second explanation for motivational gap has a problem- there is an inconsistency
between moral principle to not contribute to harms of climate change and
materialism on other hand- these two conflicts- this is inconvenient for people
- Always going to try and bring action in line with moral principles- not same in
climate change- to explain this need to look to meta ethics and moral psychology.

Internalism vs externalism:
• Strong internalism:
• A sincere moral judgement necessarily entails a strong motivation to abide by
it- if have clear moral judgment you should do something also entails
strong motivation to do this action.
• E.g you should not murder someone- no one that disagrees really unless
psychopath- due to sanctity of human life.
• Motivation to comply with one’s sincere moral judgement cannot be
overridden by self-interested motives
• From this perspective: observation that action is inadequate has to lead to the
conclusion that our moral judgement system is inadequate
• So if we come to conclusion that climate change is a moral problem we
should have strong motivation to tackle it- what internalism says.
• Perhaps too strong- we see in real life motivations to comply with moral
principles is sometimes overridden with self-interests.
• Externalism:
• Other extreme- contingent whether moral judgements would motivate
action.
• Moral judgement only contingently motivates or justifies action
• External motives/self-interest at least equal to, and often more important than
moral judgement
• Rejection of internalism = controversial- Would completely reject
internalism

Weak internalism and inconsistency:

• Position in between strong internalism and externalism
• Weak internalism:
• A sincere moral judgement necessarily entails some motivation to abide by it –
agrees with internalism that a moral judgement will always entail
motivation to abide by that moral judgment however only some
motivation and can be overridden by conflicting desires sometimes.
• Moral motivation can be overridden by conflicting desires (and defeated by
akrasia)
• However, results in inconsistency between moral standards and acting on
competing desires: how can say I’m worried about my weight yet still eat
chocolate and not exercise
 Inconsistency can be eliminated by:
• Changing conduct: moral integrity
• Changing moral standards- bring moral standards in line with conducts- to
some extent would be immoral.
• Convincing oneself and others that one’s conduct still falls within moral
standards- convincing yourself that your conduct isn’t that reprehensible-
still in line with your moral standards.
Moral agency and inconsistency (Bandura):
• People strive for moral integrity- so there is no inconsistency between moral
standards and conduct.
• Moral agency: people would like to behave in line with their moral standards:
• They do things that give them satisfaction and build their sense of self-worth.
• They refrain from behaving in ways that violate their moral standards, because
such conduct will bring self-condemnation
• However, these self-regulatory mechanisms do not operate unless they are
activated
• Social and psychological processes by which moral self-sanctions can be
disengaged from reprehensible conduct, allowing people to keep their moral
standards while at the same time violating them
• Defensive reactions, rationalisations, biased reasoning, motivated reasoning,
guilty bias, moral corruption, reactionary rhetoric, moral disengagement

Calvin tries to rationalise whether he

should cheat on his test or not
There is a cartoon of Calvin and Hobbes,
where Calvin weighs arguments pro and
contra cheating on his test. Some of these
are rationalisations and moral
disengagement.

Moral disengagement in climate change

Video of Albert Bandura explaining moral disengagement:
- Start-3'20": Explanation of moral disengagement in general. This is a bit repetition of
what has been said about moral psychology in the previous part, but it doesn't harm
having it explained in 2 ways.
- 3'20"-end: Very brief explanation of the different strategies of moral disengagement.
We will look at these in climate change specifically.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?
time_continue=16&v=JjuA4Xa7uiE&feature=emb_logo- watch if doing essay on
this

Mechanisms of moral disengagement (Bandura 1999;2002)

Mechanisms of moral disengagement in climate change:
Social and moral justification:
• Definition:
• Belief in the social or moral worthiness of an enterprise eliminates self-
condemnation for its harmful aspects, enabling people to preserve self-worth
even while inflicting harm on others
• If you have a social or morally worthy goal or enterprise
• E.g bringing kids to school in car- will try to justify driving car and
succeed in many cases by saying have to bring children to school
 Sinnott-Armstrong (2005, p. 288): outing in SUV:
• Objects against holding individuals responsible for climate change- uses
social and moral justification
• ‘Ah, the feel of wind in your hair! The views! How spectacular!’
• ‘Of course, you could drive a fuel-efficient hybrid car. But fuel-efficient cars
have less “get up and go.”’
• ‘Ah, the feel of power! The excitement!’
• ‘Maybe you do not like to go for drives in sports utility vehicles on sunny
Sunday afternoons, but many people do’- that’s enough he says not to blame
individuals- harm of driving SUV is attempted to be justified by feel of
power etc.

Claiming ignorance:- not banduras- Wouters- Bandura doesn’t refer to it as core

mechanism but Wouter says we should treat it as such
• Definition: consistency between conduct and moral standards is maintained by
selectively encoding and retrieving information regarding the harmful effects of one’s
conduct
• Confirmation bias: people’s values and beliefs affect what information they seek
• Jamieson (2010, p. 437, footnote 11): ignorance is excusable since ‘prominent
public figures are climate change deniers and science education
is so obviously inadequate’- J disagrees but Wouter disagrees with this
• However:
• Vanderheiden (2007, p. 91): ‘willful ignorance’
• Strict liability- still should be held responsible for their actions

Advantageous comparisons (1):also known as palliative comparison

• Definition: people derive subjective and descriptive norms from comparison of their
actions with those of others
• Sinnott-Armstrong (2005, p. 290):
• People should not be held responsible for harms ‘when their acts are not at all
unusual, assuming that they did not intend the harm’- Armstrong refers to
driving SUV e.g is not unusual- many people do it so surely if many
people do it then this cant be problematic.
 • Ad populum fallacy- not because many people do something that takes the
action just. Not because many people jump on cliff- shouldn’t jump after
them.

Advantageous comparisons (2):

• Sinnott-Armstrong (2005, p. 290):
• Pragmatic heuristic: condemnation should be reserved for the worst offenders-
the worst polluters- people with most GHG emissions- justifies this by
saying if we hold regular people responsible this won’t motivate worst
offenders- even if they reduce their GHG a lot they will still be held
responsible for climate change.
• Searching for worst emitters to exculpate one’s own GHG emitting
activities- v easy to point fingers
• Usualness in global context:

Discrediting evidence of harm:

• If dispute evidence of consequences of your conduct- e.g if deny CC this gives
easy way out- if CC isn’t recurring don’t have to reduce GHG emissions.
• Definition: evidence of the consequences of one’s conduct is disputed in order to
avoid facing harm
• However:
• Demanding complete certitude is a convenient
justification for inaction or delay
• More certainty needed to act on climate change?
• Perceived uncertainty is in fact manufactured or
exaggerated
• Doubt-mongering:
• No outright climate change denial
• Creating the perception that the science is not firmly
established is sufficient

Blaming one’s circumstances:

• Definition: self-exoneration is achieved by viewing conduct as forced by compelling
circumstances
• Carbon dependence of current economy diminishes moral responsibility of
individuals?
• Need to emit GHGs is a function of time and place, and specifically the energy
regime, into which someone is born
• No one could reasonable be expected not to emit subsistence emissions
 However:
 • Individuals cannot claim to be compelled to emit luxury emissions- this claim
can’t be made for luxury emissions- easy alternative to luxury emissions-
don’t engage in the luxury activities.
• Governments are creating the circumstances in which fossil fuels are
necessary- hard for gov to claim it then.

Diffusion of responsibility:
• Definition of collective action (as a strategy of moral disengagement):
• One’s contribution to an aggregate harmful effect seems trivial- seems
causally ineffective.
• Any harm done by a group of people can largely be ascribed to the behaviour
of others
• Shue (1996, pp. 112-3): since many systematic deprivations are the responsibility of
practically everyone, ‘they are the responsibility of no one in particular, least of all
oneself. No one needs to change until after everyone else changes, it seems’- refers to
poverty- very easy justification to not change your own behaviour
• Miller (2008, p. 120): if we leave the collective duty to tackle climate change
undistributed, ‘we fall into the familiar trap whereby no particular person or group of
persons has a defined obligation, and each can excuse him- or herself from taking
steps to combat climate change by passing the responsibility to someone else’- refers
to climate change- v easy to excuse yourself if you can pass blame or
responsibility to someone else.

Addressing the motivational gap

- Have seen moral disengagement is abundantly present in climate change. How

does this work in explaining the motivational gap.

Link to first explanation: improving moral judgement:

• First explanation = complexity of climate change
• Inadequacy of moral judgement system
• Also provides wiggle room for moral disengagement- if can reduce
complexity can reduce wiggle room
 Enhance people’s moral judgement:
• Emphasis on individual’s agency in climate change:
• Nolt (2011): individual GHG emissions cause the suffering/deaths of 2
future persons- if keep this in mind this increases urgency of how
own contributions do harm to people- might provide more
motivation to tackle climate change.
• Emphasis on already observed climatic changes
• Focus on how individual actions do make a difference- not only
focusing on the fact unilateral actions will reduce climate change
but also have spill over effects.
• Reduces wiggle room for moral disengagement- less easy for people to
minimise their own contribution to climate change
 Invoking alternative moral values:
• Alternative moral priorities: group loyalty, purity/sanctity, …
• Green virtues: humility, temperance, mindfulness, cooperativeness, respect for
nature
Link to second explanation: Addressing competing motives:
• Pursuit of happiness does not require consumerism
• ‘Alternative hedonism’:
• Positive effects of social wellbeing
• Negative effects of materialism
• Wellbeing derived from pro-environmental behaviour- walking good for mental
health
• Self-interested pursuit of happiness does not have to compete with moral judgement
(environmental concerns)
• So, no inconsistency, so no reason for moral disengagement

Tackling the propensity for moral disengagement:

• Bandura done a lot of work observing moral disengagement- but hasn’t made
suggestions how to reduce moral disengagement and how to fight it. Some
tentative suggestions:
• Alienation from consequences of one’s conduct:
• Enabled by moral disengagement
• Jamieson (2006, p. 479): it is essential to develop ‘a sense of ownership and
identification with the outcomes that our actions produce’
• Promote better general understanding of moral psychology and the function of moral
disengagement
• if we know these happen and what they do then perhaps they lose their
convincingness- less convinced by own rationalisations or those of others.
• Increase people’s ability to recognise mechanisms of moral disengagement
• Gardiner (2011a, p. 301): ‘serious moral agents strive to protect themselves
against rationalisation, self-deception, and moral manipulation’
 Link action on climate change to positive moral emotions might decrease defensive
processing
• Feelings of pride about rising to the challenge- if we praise people for
tackling climate change that might motivate people more to contribute to
tackling climate change than the negative message people’s GHG are
contributing to climate change.
• Personal efficacy and competence- if we can convince people that their
individual contributions do matter they might be feel more self-efficacious
and competent in tackling collective action problems.

Lecture 9: Climate change and gender justice

Overview:
1. Vulnerability and gender
2. Responsibility and gender- does gender have impact on moral responsibility for cc
3. Gender-sensitivity and climate governance- what gender- sensitive response should
look like
 - We will discuss two paradigmatic ways of looking at the relationship between
climate change and gender: "Women's vulnerability" and "Women's virtuousness".
Please note, however, that we will also criticise these paradigms for being
essentialising, generalising, and for ignoring many other genders and aspects of
gender. In addition, we will discuss what a gender-sensitive response to climate
change would look like.

Important disclaimer!
• Two paradigms talk about women as vulnerable and virtuous- important to point
out that we are not talking about a biological difference between men and women
which make them more vulnerable- more about the power dynamics and the social
constructive aspects of gender. E.g women in Bangladesh aren’t taught how to
swim so are more vulnerable to floods- doesn’t mean less physically able to swim
biologically but rather its society which dictates that women aren’t being taught
how to swim.
• Traditional paradigms to talk about gender justice related to climate change (see e.g.
Arora-Johnson 2011):
• Women as vulnerable – gender as driver of marginalisation
• Women as virtuous
 These paradigms discussed are essentialising:
• They treat men and women as clearly delineated, homogeneous categories
• They do not speak to other gender identities or other conceptions of gender
that may be better approaches to the complex reality of gender- e.g they
don’t include LGBTQIA+ people
 Bearing this critique in mind, it is nonetheless useful to discuss these paradigms,
because to a large extent, these categories are still in use around the world as the
hegemonic (although clearly flawed) approach to gender- but still even though have
to take all this criticisms- still useful o discuss these paradigms as these categories
are still used around world as hegemonic approach to gender
 still worth discussing whether women due to be subjugated are more vulnerable
than men
• It is useful to critically discuss hegemonic norms and how they generate injustice
from the ‘internal’ and ‘external’ perspective- we will focus most of all on internal
perspective- we take the structuring- the categories for granted and then can see
how these end up in injustices between men and women
• External says these categories are limiting and don’t take into account other
gender identities.
• More marginalised in society you are more- more vulnerable to cc you are-
LGBTQIA+ people are still marginalised in many cultures meaning they are likely to
be more vulnerable to climate change.

Petra Tschakert also explains some of the limitations of research into climate change and
gender and the focus on women- video in lecture
- There’s a tendency to only look at women in climate change- how women are
more severely impacted by climate change- it essentialises women- makes them
look poor and helpless- portrays them as victims of climate change which is of
course not true and thus problematic.
 - We know from extreme events that more men die during hurricane because they
were expected to be heroic life savers
- Very little research looks at gender, class, identity at same time.

Vulnerability and gender

- In many societies’ women face socio-economic disadvantages which make them
more vulnerable to climate change

Socio-economic disadvantages:
Women are generally more likely:
• to live in poverty
• to eat last and least in poor families
• to have no ownership of land and resources
• to have less control over production and income
• to have less education and training
• to have less access to institutional support
and information
• to have less freedom of association
• to have fewer positions on decision-making bodies
• to be more constrained by their
responsibilities for children and elderly

Disadvantages in national disasters:

• Women are more likely:
• to die during and after a natural disaster due to cultural and gender norms:
women in India and Bangladesh are told not leave house a male
authoritative figure
• Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami (2004)
• to be exposed to violence during and after a natural disaster or crisis, for example:
• Hurricane Katrina (USA 2005)
• Earthquake Christchurch (New Zealand 2011)
• Syrian refugee crisis (ongoing)
• Typhoon Haiyan (Phillippines 2014)
 to have less access to resources that are essential to disaster preparedness,
mitigation and rehabilitation

Impacts of climate change on women:

• Health impacts of climate change:
• Gender discrimination in distribution of resources relating to nutrition and
medicines- food assistance after natural disasters- mainly men that do
distribution
• Care for the sick: higher risk + less income – women care more for the sick
than men- so higher risk of becoming infected and its non-paid- so less
income and thus become more dependent.
• Fresh water sources might be less available- more cholera etc in a flood
 Water provision and management:
 • Women and girls assume primary responsibility for collecting water
• Climate change will induce water stress for 2/3 of world by 2025- we already
see this happening now- this will put a much larger burden on women and
girls who will have to walk further to find clean water.
 Aftermath: household workload, domestic and sexual violence

Case study: Cyclone and flood in 1991 in Bangladesh

• Cyclone with winds of 250 km/h + 6m storm surge over a wide area
• Impacts on humans:
• Mortality: 138,000
• Homeless: 10 million
• Morbidity: diarrhoea, respiratory and
urinary infections, …- lots of illnesses going around
• Mortality for women 5 times higher than for men:
• Not an intrinsic or natural difference between men and women- due to the
different roles men and women have in society in Bangladesh
• Warning information transmitted by men to men in public spaces, but rarely
communicated to the rest of the family
• Women are not allowed to leave the house without a male relative
• Women do not learn / are not being taught how to swim

Case Study: Lessons from response to Philippines Typhoon Haiyan (November 2013)
• Health care:
• 221,849 pregnant women and 147,899 lactating women
• Menstrual hygiene supplies
• Supply of food and non-food items based on individual and family needs- the mother
will eat last
• Shelter: safety of shared accommodation- violence and sexual abuse towards
women is on the rise in natural disasters. Shelters should be safe.
• Livelihood:
• Equal benefits of cash assistance
• Vulnerable employment/exploitation
• Consultation of different groups!

- Child marriages in African countries have resulted due to climate change- because of
stresses on environment families didn’t have food to feed all of children so girls
were given up for child marriage
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/26/climate-change-creating-
generation-of-child-brides-in-africa

Objections (1)- to seeing women as more vulnerable to climate change

• Vulnerability = natural hazard + socio-economic factors (especially poverty)-
important factors of determining vulnerability
• E.g. Hurricane Mitch- how different gender groups are in a differential way more
vulnerable
• 1998 – 3.5 million people affected in mainly Honduras and Nicaragua –
18,000 deaths
 • Latino culture of machismo: socially constructed roles and riskier behaviour
• Aftermath:
• Aid afterwards: women less likely than men to receive cash or
agricultural training, but more likely to receive inputs such as seed
• Increase of women’s involvement in reconstruction, …, but women’s
work less valued

Objections (2)
• Insistence on women’s universal vulnerability (in developing world):
• Crowds out other concerns regarding gender (e.g. power imbalances, causes
of marginalisation)- other concerns regarding gender that’s much more
important than male vs female- shouldn’t just focus only on women
because this might ignore other concerns such as age or ethnicity
discrepancies.
• Denies women agency – vulnerability as their specific problem- its
patronising to say they are vulnerable
• Reinforces differences between women and men as static facts through
generalisations and polarisations
• Thus: not intrinsic characteristics, but expressions of gender inequalities and
power relations
• Transfer of resources to vulnerable women:
• ‘Feminisation of disaster response’: as a result of focus on women as poor
and vulnerable- we might only look at women to respond to the disaster
and to some extent this is necessary but to another extent it would be
unjust to focus only on women.
• ‘Feminisation of responsibility’: risk of contributing to the problem by
pushing more of the burden of dealing with poverty onto women- more of a
problem- it we treat women as vulnerable and poor then our response
might also be to give them the responsibility to become less vulnerable
which is wrong.

Responsibility and gender

Women are considered:

• To be more sensitive to risk
• To be more prepared for behavioural change
• To be more likely to support drastic policies and measures on climate change
• To travel shorter distances (and more often by public transport, cycling or walking)
• To eat less meat
• To be closer to nature and more environmentally conscious

Women as pro-environmental:
• Key role in maintaining biodiversity:
• Conserving and domesticating wild edible plant seeds and food crop breeding
• Not sufficiently recognised in agricultural and economic policy making
• Strategic interests of development practices:
 • Mobilising the extra resources of women’s labour, skill and knowledge-
should find more room in including this in developmental strategies
• Justifying environmental interventions which targeted women exclusively
• Success at the expense of women
• Risk of giving women responsibility for ‘saving the environment’
without addressing whether they actually have the resources or
capacity to do so

Critique on paradigm of ‘virtuous women of the North’:

• Varied roles and activities of men and women in different contexts- e.g men work
more often in jobs for which they need a car so fossil fuel is higher than that of
women who tend to work less in these kind of jobs.
• Questions of gender and power in environmental management are extremely
relevant in a poorer country but also in a richer country
• Development discourses about equality and empowerment bear not only on how
these are conceptualised and practiced in the South, but also shape the space for
gender equality in the North

Gender-sensitivity and climate governance

Problems with paradigms of women’s vulnerability and virtuousness:

• Credibility of gender research undermined by lack of data and evidence, dubious
statistical claims- lack of data and evidence- in this way gender research’s
credibility is undermined
• Both paradigms:
• Present static conception of women’s roles
• Represent women as a homogeneous group in marginal position vis-a-vis
men- also an overgeneralisation

Gender sensitivity:
• Gender-sensitive response to climate change requires:
• Not only disaggregated data on differential
impacts on women and men
• An understanding of existing inequalities
between women and men:
• How climate change can exacerbate these inequalities
• How these inequalities can exacerbate the impacts of
climate change
• Gender sensitivity in decision-making is essential for effective mitigation and
adaptation
• Gendered approach to climate change should not simply be focused on women

Climate policy and gender

Paris agreement:
• Preamble: acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind,
Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and
 consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights
of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with
disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well
as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity.
• Art 7: Capacity-building and adaptation action should follow a country-driven,
gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into
consideration vulnerable groups, communities and eco-systems
• COP 25: 5-year enhanced Lima work programme on gender and gender action plan

More inclusive climate negotiations needed:

• International climate negotiations:
• Disparities between rich and poor nations,
women and men, NGOs and government policy-makers
• Exclusion of social groups from decision-making: indigenous groups, women,
children
• COP24: 38% of party delegates and only 27% of heads of delegation were
women
• Gender balance and more sustainable negotiations may go hand in hand:
• Local authorities with the highest recycling rates in EU were those with
greater-than-average percentage of female managers
• 14 of the 18 developed countries that stabilised or reduced their overall
carbon emissions between 1990 and 2004 had greater-than-average
percentage of female elected representatives
• Not only more inclusive negotiations needed, but institutional change and
flexibility in institutional forms is needed so that groups can participate in
decision-making

Gender mainstreaming (Alston 2014):

3 stages of gender equality policy
• Equal treatment (e.g. laws, voting rights)
• Positive actions for women (e.g. leadership training and quota)
• Gender mainstreaming:
• Incorporating a gender perspective to any action, policy or legislation in order
to ensure that the concerns of all are addressed and that gender inequalities
are not perpetuated through institutional means
• Exposing gender as a socially constructed phenomenon and making
transparent new possibilities for reshaped and more equitable gender
arrangements
• Commitment to a comprehensive assessment of organisational structures,
policies and practices for gender bias
• Diversity mainstreaming?

Paradox:
• Rapid adoption, but why does mainstreaming not produce gender equality?
• Explanations:
• Lack of clarity about the vision of mainstreaming
 • Policies can reinforce gender inequalities by their definition of the issue
• Reluctance or inability of key players to commit to gender equality outcomes
– procedures processes rather than substantive change
• Local contexts and institutions through which gender mainstreaming is
developed and delivered are themselves highly gendered
• Can gender survive mainstreaming?
• Gender as a non-problem
• Transformative potential