1. What, if anything, is wrong with this argument? “Global temperatures have been
much higher in the past, long before human activities could have influenced
them, so the current warming trend is just a natural temperature fluctuation.”
Stand: While it is true that the Earth’s hottest periods were before human existence,
we cannot deny that the current warming trend is not attributed to human activity. The
Earth was its hottest during the beginning of its existence, mainly due to the heat
generated while colliding with other planets in the once volatile solar system.
Furthermore, the scale of temperature range now versus at the beginning of the
Earth’s existence is not comparable (~1900 deg C vs 25 deg C). At that high of a
temperature, human existence is not even a distant possibility.
Scott and Lindsey, 2020
Our 4.54-billion-year-old planet probably experienced its hottest temperatures in its
earliest days, when it was still colliding with other rocky debris (planetesimals)
careening around the solar system. The heat of these collisions would have kept Earth
molten, with top-of-the-atmosphere temperatures upward of 3,600° Fahrenheit.
Earth then took tens of millions of years to cool. The Ice Age then followed (600-800
million years ago), where ice sheets not only capped the polar latitudes, but may have
extended all the way to sea level near the equator. How did the planet then thaw to
how it is now? The continuous shifting of tectonic plates and volcanic activity lead to
a drastic increase in GHG carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Coupled with little
rainfall, global temperatures started to climb. By the end of this, global average
temperature is at approximately 32 deg C. Our current global average temperature is
about 15 deg C, and this goes to show that our Earth has taken hundreds of millions of
years to reach climate stability. Furthermore, anatomically modern humans only
existed for approximately 200,000-300,000 years ago, hence the link between human
activities and global warming can only be studied from that duration on.
Sisterson and Darling (How to change minds about our changing climate)
A more just/fair way to study whether or not human activities correlate with current
warming trends is to analyse the thirty-year averages of our global climate a.k.a
climate normals. From the analysis of the recent climate normals, it is concluded that
the most recent increase in carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere is indeed drastic.
- CO2 levels began climbing noticeably beginning in the late 18th century (the
beginning of Industrial Revolution) and has maintained an upward trend till
today
- Our current atmosphere has more CO2 in it than at any time in the entire
history captured in the ice cores.
-
-
We humans use energy at a breathtaking rate. We consume energy today at an
average rate of 18 trillion watts every second, equivalent to running 18 billion
microwaves all the time. Energy use involves the burning of fossil fuels,
which is a non-renewable resource that is gradually running out, and such
burning contributes to the emission of large amounts of CO2 (30 billion tons a
year) which is a main source of our current global warming trends.
Since energy is a commodity, and the market cares more about how much
energy costs than where the energy comes from, we opt for energy sources that
are plentiful and relatively easy to use and therefore cheap (fossil fuels)
Carbon Brief: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans
Human emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed
since 1950, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC)
fifth assessment report.
How much warming is caused by humans:
-
-
-
-
-
In its 2013 fifth assessment report, the IPCC stated in its summary for
policymakers that it is “extremely likely that more than half of the
observed increase in global average surface temperature” from 1951 to
2010 was caused by human activity. By “extremely likely”, it meant that
there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of
modern warming was due to humans.
This somewhat convoluted statement has been often misinterpreted as
implying that the human responsibility for modern warming lies
somewhere between 50% and 100%. In fact, as NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt
has pointed out, the IPCC’s implied best guess was that humans were
responsible for around 110% of observed warming (ranging from 72% to
146%), with natural factors in isolation leading to a slight cooling over the
past 50 years.
Similarly, the recent US fourth national climate assessment found that
between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human
activities.
These conclusions have led to some confusion as to how more than 100%
of observed warming could be attributable to human activity. A human
contribution of greater than 100% is possible because natural climate
change associated with volcanoes and solar activity would most likely
have resulted in a slight cooling over the past 50 years, offsetting some of
the warming associated with human activities.
2. What, if anything, is wrong with this argument? “Carbon dioxide is plant food.
As any high school science class will tell you, it helps them grow. The more of it
there is the better they grow. So increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead
to a greening of the Earth. This is surely a good thing.”
While it is true that CO2 is plant food, it is also true that deforestation is happening at
an increasing and alarming rate, while carbon dioxide emission is at an all time high,
At some point, the amount of trees will be the limiting factor, whereby there will not
be enough trees to fully utilise the amount of CO2 available in the atmosphere. The
high presence of excess CO2 in the atmosphere will result in a hike in the Earth’s
temperature.
According to co2meter.com, not enough trees will be planted to combat CO2 in our
atmosphere. On average, a typical hardwood tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of
carbon dioxide per year. This means it will sequester approximately 1 ton of carbon
dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old. While one ton of CO2 might sound like a
significant amount, human activities charter 40 billion tons of CO2 into the air every
year. This means we would theoretically have to plant 40 billion trees every year, then
wait for decades to see any positive effect. By the time 40 years had passed, the trees
we had originally planted would only cancel out the increased CO2 levels today.
3. What does protecting human rights mean for the obligations states have to adapt
to the effects of anthropogenic climate change?
According to John Nolt, anthropogenic climate change may contribute to a mass
extinction that would leave biodiversity depleted for millions of years—quite possibly
longer than the duration of the human species. In 2021, there was a vote to recognise
the Right to a Healthy Environment. Many, especially those in richer regions, do not
realise that the effects of anthropogenic climate change pose threats to human rights,
especially in the aspect of access to clean resources and liveable environments.
Derek Bell (School of Politics, Geog and Sociology, University of Newcastle)
How does anthropogenic climate change violate human rights?: Global warming
could result in hundreds of millions of people suffering from hunger, malnutrition,
water shortages, floods, droughts, heat stress, diseases triggered by extreme
weather events, loss of livelihood, and permanent displacement. Indeed, climate
change poses a direct threat to a wide range of universally recognized fundamental
rights, such as the rights to life, food, adequate housing, health and water. (United
Nations 2007)
Simon Caney has identified several human rights that are threatened by climate
change, including the right to life, the right to health, and the right to subsistence
(Caney 2009a, 2009b). He has also suggested that: It is arguable that climate
change jeopardises a human right to development.[...] Furthermore, one might
argue that there is a human right not to be forcibly evicted [...] and that climate
change violates this because people from coastal settlements and small island states
will be forced to leave. (Caney2010, p. 80)
United Nations
Dr Ian Fry highlighted the “enormous injustice” perpetrated by rich countries and
major corporations, which are not acting to reduce their greenhouse emissions, and
consequently failing the poorest and least able to cope.
“The G20 members, for instance, account for 78 percent of emissions over the last
decade”, he underscored.
The Special Rapporteur sat down with UN News before delivering his report, which
focuses on three areas: mitigation action, loss and damage, access and inclusion, and
the protection of climate rights defenders.
He spoke about what he hopes the upcoming UN Climate Conference in Egypt
(COP27) will achieve, addressed some of the climate-action challenges given the war
in Ukraine, and shared some of the recommendations he made to member states,
including the call for a High-Level Forum to be held next year.
-
-
-
-
First, issues around improving action on mitigation to get countries to commit
to more action. We know that there's not enough being done to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, so I want to bring attention to that and look at the
human rights implications of not doing enough on climate change.
The next issue is precisely the consequences of that, and I'm looking at the
issue of loss and damage. These are the huge impacts that countries are
suffering as a consequence of climate change and the huge costs that are
involved. To date, there have been discussions around establishing a Loss and
Damage fund, but that's been moving very slowly, so I'm hoping to build
further momentum to work on getting that fund agreed, and up and running.
The final issue is around access and inclusion. This is getting people who are
most affected by climate change to be able to present their voices to climate
change meetings. This is women, children, youth, people with disabilities,
indigenous peoples, all the groups that are right at the forefront of climate
change and human rights impacts. We need to find ways of getting their voice
into the climate change process.
-
Relationship between climate change and human rights: If we think about the
floods in Nigeria and Pakistan, and the severe drought that's occurring in
Somalia now, people's human rights are being affected as a consequence of
climate change. These are millions of people around the world whose basic
enjoyment of human rights is being affected. So, we have to make that
connection, we have to put a human face to climate change.
Ideal outcome: One of them is to commence a process to establish this Loss and
Damage Fund. We also must have a process to ensure greater participation,
particularly for civil society, youth, and women groups, and to open up the COP to
these groups to have a better say. + a revision of the Gender Action Plan since it's
quite old, it's not well-developed. We know that there are critical issues of climate
change impacts on women and young people, and those issues need to be brought and
put forward onto the Agenda and Action Plan developed to address those issues .
2015 UN Climate Change Conference (COP21)
The right to life:
-
-
-
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “everyone has the
right to life, liberty and security of person.” The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) reiterates that “every human being has the
inherent right to life.” All States have committed to respect, protect, promote,
and fulfil the right to life. This entails, at the very least, that States should take
effective measures against foreseeable and preventable loss of life.
Climate change clearly poses a threat to human life. Abul Hassan Mahmood
Ali, Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, described this threat as “existential”. As
highlighted by Renan Dalisay, Page 14 of 28 Administrator of the National
Food Authority of the Philippines, in his remarks about Typhoon Yolanda
which “left a path of death and destruction, claiming no less than 7500
precious Filipino lives, mostly in economically vulnerable communities,” this
threat extends to both present and future generations. Yolanda, or Typhoon
Haiyan as it is more commonly known internationally, was an extreme
weather event.
In the context of climate change, extreme weather events may be the most
visible and most dramatic threat to the enjoyment of the right to life but they
are by no means the only one. Climate change kills through drought, increased
heat, expanding disease vectors and a myriad of other ways. According to a
report by the Climate Vulnerable Forum and DARA International, climate
change is already responsible for approximately 400,000 deaths per year and
that number is expected to rise to 700,00 by 2030. In order to uphold the right
to life, States must take effective measures to mitigate and adapt to climate
change and prevent foreseeable loss of life.
The right to development:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Article 55 of UN Charter: States should promote “conditions of economic and
social progress and development”
ICESCR and ICCPR emphasise that all peoples should “freely determine their
political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development”
UN: holistic vision of development is an inalienable human right by virtue of
which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in,
contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development,
in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realised
States should take steps individually and collectively to guarantee all persons
the ability to enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development.
Climate change poses an existential threat to people’s enjoyment of their right
to development. According to World Bank President, Jim Yong Kim “unless
the world takes bold action now, a disastrously warming planet threatens to
put prosperity out of reach of millions and roll back decades of development”
Limiting the effects of climate change is necessary to achieve sustainable
development and equity, including poverty eradication. In the recently adopted
Sustainable Development Goals, combating climate change (see Goal 13) has
been recognized as instrumental to sustainable development, highlighting the
importance of addressing climate change and its adverse effects to secure
sustainable, inclusive development that benefits all persons
The right to development was the subject of marked emphasis during the panel
discussions. Panellists agreed that the right to development should inform
humanity’s collective response to climate change. Renan Dalisay cautioned
that “climate change dilutes the right of vulnerable communities to
socio-economic development.”
Many developing countries were forced to divert financial and human
resources away from development priorities like health, education and
agrarian support to confront climate change and its impacts.
Mithika Mwenda: In addition to having the obligation to protect human rights
within their borders, States and the international community had broader
responsibilities to promote the realisation of all human rights for all and
should act collectively to address climate change.
4. Who, if anyone, is morally obligated to compensate individuals whose human
right to health has been violated because of anthropogenic climate change?
We can probably universally agree that the greater contributors of climate change are
the richer countries who have the power to industrialise, and the government bodies
who are turning to such outlets for revenue.
NY Times: In a first, rich countries agree to pay for climate damages in poor nations
-
Negotiators from nearly 200 countries concluded two weeks of talks early
Sunday in which their main achievement was agreeing to establish a fund that
would help poor, vulnerable countries cope with climate disasters made worse
by the pollution spewed by wealthy nations that is dangerously heating the
planet. For more than three decades, developing nations have pressed for loss
and damage money, asking rich, industrialised countries to provide
compensation for the costs of destructive storms, heat waves and droughts
fueled by global warming.
-
Nations cannot be held legally liable for payments. Conclusion on the Loss
and Damage fund: The European Union consented to the idea of a loss and
damage fund, though it insisted that any aid should be focused on the most
vulnerable nations, and that aid might include a wide variety of options such
as new insurance programs in addition to direct payments.
-
For their part, a variety of European nations have voluntarily pledged more
than $300 million to address loss and damage so far, with most of that money
going toward a new insurance program to help countries recover from
disasters like flooding.
Other than rich developed countries, developing countries pushed for the
World Bank and International Monetary Fund for reforms. The agreement was
for the two to pay into the loss and damage fund.
-
5. What, if anything, does the non-identity problem tell us about how we frame
discussions of anthropogenic climate change?
The non-identity problem: the difficulty in reconciling our intuition that impersonal
actions can be morally good or bad, with the fact that they do not improve or worsen
the lives of any specific people. No sane person doubts that we have moral reasons
not to cause these conditions, as well as reasons to prevent them if we can. The
questions to be considered here concern the nature and strength of these reasons.
Arguments against climate change should concern the lives of future generations, and
the types of climate conditions that they have to endure, though the current pool of
human beings will no longer be around.
Jeff McMahan, University of Oxford: Climate Change, War and the Non-identity
Problem
-
-
Assumptions when discussing:
1. Effects of climate change on current generation of humans + humans
of the near future will not be discussed. Though important, they are not
relevant to the issues in population ethics that are of primary concern.
2. Assume that the proportion of people who will exist a century from
now if we do cause climate change whose lives as wholes will be
worth living will be roughly the same as the proportion of those people
now whose lives are worth living. Great majority of people who live in
conditions of extreme deprivation and violence find their lives worth
living and struggle to prolong them, even if they expect those
conditions to persist
3. Anthropogenic climate change means that discussion of climate change
on animal lives should be discounted, though important.
4.
The threat of climate change raises the problem known as the Non-Identity
Problem. Suppose that industrial countries do not immediately and drastically
reduce their emissions and thus do cause climate change in 100 years. Let us
refer to the people who will suffer the effects of the “climate-change people.”
These countries could, of course, take immediate and drastic action to reduce
emissions and thus avoid causing more than minimal change in climate
conditions in 100 years. The changes in policies throughout the world that
would be necessary for this would affect, to varying degrees, the lives of
virtually everyone now living. The differences in people’s daily lives would
mean that different people would meet one another, different romantic
partnerships would be formed, and, as a result, different children would be
conceived from different genetic materials. Even within those partnerships that
would be the same, conceptions would occur at different times so that, again,
different children would be conceived from different genetic materials. In
short, the shifts in large-scale energy and social policies would result in the
existence in the future of different people from those who would have existed
if the shifts in policy had not occurred. It is reasonable to suppose that, after
100 years, the vast majority of people who would exist would be different
people from those who would have existed in the absence of the changes in
policy. For simplicity, and not altogether unrealistically, let us assume that the
entire population of the world who would exist 100 years from now would be
different, apart from those who already exist now. We can refer to these
different people who would exist if industrial countries did change their
policies as the “stable-climate people.”
-
-
-
The identities of the people in either group are not important. What matters is
that if our policies do cause climate change, this will not be worse for the
climate-change people, whoever they may be, for it is not the case that, if we
had not caused climate change, that would have been better for them. If we
had not caused climate change, they would not have been better off; rather,
they would never have existed and different people – the stable-climate people
– would have existed instead. Of course, our having caused climate change
would cause the climate-change people to experience many effects that would
be bad for them, such as disease, injury, and premature death. But it would
also be a necessary condition of all that would be good in their lives, which,
assuming that their lives would be worth living, would outweigh those bad
effects. If anything, therefore, our having caused climate change would,
overall, be good for the climate-change people, as it would have resulted in
their existing with lives that would be good for them.
The Non-Identity Problem, in its application to this case, is the problem of
explaining what reason there is either not to cause climate change or to
prevent it, given that it would be neither worse nor on balance bad for those
who would suffer its effects (again, setting aside the effects on people whose
existence is independent of the policies and acts that cause those effects). If,
moreover, we can identify the reason not to cause climate change, we will then
need to determine how strong that reason is. Is it, in particular, as strong as the
reason we would have not to cause climate change if there were no
Non-Identity Problem, so that climate change would be worse for the
climate-change people?
Conclusion drawn by Michael Otsuka: the objection to our causing climate
change is weaker than it would be if there were no Non-Identity Problem and
climate change would be worse for the climate-change people.
➢ Suggested an objection to causing climate change that is not weakened
by the Non-Identity Problem. He rightly observes that it is only
large-scale policies of states and corporations that have extensive
effects over a relatively short time in determining which people will
exist in the future.
➢
➢ Therefore, to the extent that these individual acts contribute to or
exacerbate climate change, their bad effects in the lives of people in
the future are highly likely to be worse for those people. He then cites
John Broome’s estimate that “the typical lifetime carbon emissions of
an individual in a developed country can be expected to shorten human
lives by about 4 months in total” over the course of 100 years. This
total harm to people whose existence is independent of the acts that
cause it “provides grounds for morally significant complaints,” Otsuka
writes, even if the “losses are spread out more thinly among a number
of people.”
➢
➢ The acts that make morally significant contributions to causing climate
change also determine who will exist in the future and suffer the bad
effects of climate change. Because these people would not have existed
had these acts not been done, the acts are not worse for them.
6. Why should we aggressively act now on anthropogenic climate change when we
would be better placed to do so in the future?
Climate change has become an increasingly urgent issue where immediate action has
to be taken. Two years ago, it was declared that the effects of climate change will be
irreversible if nothing changes, and here we are, two years later. While we might have
better technology in the future that can tackle climate change efficiently, we cannot
afford to wait till those methods are developed to start working. By then, the
detrimental effects of climate change would have rendered these methods ineffective.
Why it’s urgent
One might wonder, what happens if we do not take action? Could it really be that
bad? If left unchecked, climate change will undo a lot of the progress made over the
past years in development. It can also exacerbate, as we are already seeing, current
threats such as food and water scarcity, which can lead to conflict. Doing nothing will
end up costing us a lot more than if we take actions now that will lead to more jobs,
greater prosperity, and better lives for all while reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and building climate resilience.
According to the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, it is not enough to act. We must act
now. Delayed efforts to mitigate either carbon dioxide or short-lived climate pollutant
emissions will have negative, and potentially irreversible, consequences for global
warming, rising sea levels, food security, and public health. Due to their relatively
short lifetime in the atmosphere, ranging from a few days to a few decades, reducing
short-lived climate pollutants can rapidly slow the rate of global temperature rise,
complement efforts to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions and keep warming below
2°C. The Climate and Clean Air Coalition’s measures can cut methane emissions by
at least 40% and black carbon by up to 70% by 2030, and virtually eliminate (99.5%)
high-global warming potential hydrofluorocarbons altogether by 2050 (all compared
to 2010 levels). Reducing short-lived climate pollutants provides other significant
benefits. These include preventing millions of premature deaths annually, improving
food security by avoiding tens-of-millions of tonnes of annual staple crop losses,
protecting vital ecosystems and ecosystem services, reducing the risk of dangerous
and irreversible climate tipping points, and making significant contributions to
achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Why half a degree more is such a big deal
A warmer world — even by a half-degree Celsius — has more evaporation, leading to
more water in the atmosphere. Such changing conditions put our agriculture, health,
water supply and more at risk. Picture a North Carolina cotton farm that’s been
around since 1960, with global average temperatures rising by roughly half a degree
since it grew its first crop. The increased evaporation and additional moisture to the
atmosphere has led to 30% more intense rain during heavy downpours in that part of
the U.S. Then a hurricane like 2018’s Florence — already strengthened by warmer
oceans and higher seas — dumps this excess rainfall on the farm. The crops get more
flooded and damaged than they did half a century ago. A half a degree increase can
drive a nation into economic hardship.
7. When thinking about acting on climate change, how much, if any, consideration
should we give to non-human entities?
When people discuss climate change, another bulk of our ecosystem, apart from
humans, are wildlife and animals. As much as it is only ethical to consider animals as
part of our worsening climate, humans are selfish by nature, and not everyone would
care about animals as much as they care about the human species. However, it is
disheartening and heartbreaking to see the koalas and wildlife having their homes
destroyed in wildfires and the process of deforestation. Animals, like humans, are
sentient beings. They feel pain, hopelessness, and loss when they lose their natural
habitats. We can liken that to a human losing his home and being exposed to the wrath
of the external world of harsh weather conditions and the potential harms of the
outside environment.
If the moral standpoint of protecting animals amidst climate change does not motivate
one to act against climate change, let us explore how the presence of animals and
wildlife helps with human survival. To put things into perspective, if you were to
weigh all the land mammals globally today, only 4% are wild; the rest are livestock
and humans. In the last century we have also depleted life in the oceans - 90% of the
large fish including sharks, tuna, and cod are gone. If we continue like this, soon the
only large animals left on the planet will be us, our domesticated food and our pets,
while the largest plant communities won’t be forests, wetlands or grasslands but
monocultures mirroring the American Midwest. Some people dream of
“terra-forming” Mars; yet we’re “Mars-forming” Earth.
The oxygen we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat - they all depend on other
forms of life. Without the rest of species on the planet, there would be no prosperity,
no economy, no us. Not only have we taken all those species and the goods and
services we obtain from them for granted, but we have also destroyed their homes and
families – at grave cost to them, and us. As scientists like E.O. Wilson have been
telling us for a generation, we need half of the planet in a natural state, with
functioning ecosystems that continue providing for us. For instance, we cannot
achieve the Paris climate agreement goal (not to exceed 2°C in atmospheric
temperature above pre-industrial levels) without intact ecosystems – our forests,
grasslands, ocean habitats – absorbing much of the excess carbon pollution we expel
into the atmosphere. More protected areas with thriving biodiversity not only go
hand-in-hand with climate change mitigation but also they are required to correct our
devastating trajectories. Nature is our greatest friend and ally, not our
foe.dsfgdskjnfgbdhnksmjfnghdnksfgdksjkfghgsffgfsnhsgdrgksndjdbjknsjkebfkjeabf
Healthy ecosystems – in protected areas or managed traditionally by local
communities and indigenous peoples – are key to our economy too in many ways. As
one example, natural disasters caused by ecosystem degradation and climate change
already cost the world more than $300 billion per year – and that number is expected
to grow. In a conference a few years ago, we heard an executive of a top insurance
company say that a rise of 2°C is uninsurable, and a rise of 3°C is uninvestable. But
there is more to nature than its instrumental value. Even if you’re like half the people
on Earth living in a city, if you’ve been to the ocean, a forest or a lake, you know the
feeling of being intrinsically connected to the rest of life on our planet. It restores us,
calms us, entertains us and inspires us. How wonderful is it that there are millions of
other forms of life waiting to be discovered? They won’t necessarily thank us for
keeping them here and letting them do their jobs, but we can definitely thank them as
we wouldn’t be here without them.
8. Should our climate policies simply be aimed at forwarding human interests or do
other things matter?
Definition of human interests:
● Profiting
● Health implications