Climate Change and Development Ethics
Nigel Dower
n.dower@abdn.ac.uk
This presentation surveys the range of ethical issues that arise when
we think of the impact of climate change on development, in particular
on the development prospects for poor people, including the issue of
the mal-distribution of environmental 'bads' caused by climate change.
It considers more generally the relevance of development to ethical
responsibilities connected with both mitigation and adaptation.
1.
Development Ethics
(a) Narrow focus:
Ethical issues to do with appropriate policies (and critique of
inappropriate policies) - local, national and international – for
tackling world poverty
And/or generally tackling the continued inequality between
countries
(b) Broader focus:
Ethical issues to do with development anywhere in the world:
What forms of socio-economic change are ethically appropriate?
For this we need both an adequate account of:
What the key goods are
(elements of well-being e.g. in Sen’s capabilities approach); and
What the key social norms are
(e.g. justice, rights, democracy); and
What constraints need to be accepted in the pursuit of these.
Environmental problems in general and CC ethics (CCE) in
particular crucial here.
2.
Sustainability Ethics
e.g. Sustainable development: attempt to synthesise two sets of
concerns re environment and development.
(a) What are we trying to sustain?
Highly contested.
CC as an example of sustainability issues.
CC Ethics: partly application of sustainability ethics in general,
partly specific.
(b) Different ethical theories at work
Anthropocentrism:
e.g. utilitarianism; human rights; Kantianism; capabilities
approach
Non-anthropocentrism:
e.g. Biocentrism; Ecocentrism
But the same theories would apply to DE, SE and CCE.
Arguably large measure of convergence of these theories
properly applied vs. standard growth assumptions.
3.
Twin goals of CC: mitigation and adaptation
(a) Mitigation
Two main reasons:
(i) General obligation to reduce/avoid contribution to
collective harm (anywhere)
(ii) Specific obligation to reduce/avoid contribution to harming
poor people: e.g. the challenge of ‘environmental justice’
qua the distribution of environmental ‘bads’.
Re CC, generally distribution uneven and generally skewed
in the direction of poor people and poor countries suffering
disproportionately over CC impacts.
(b) Adaptation
In respect to adaptation in the South, strong moral argument for
the North to assist with this:
Both because it largely caused/is causing the problems
(backward-looking argument); and
Because it has greater capacity (forward looking argument as one
aspect of the general argument for giving aid).
(c) So, in the light of considerations under (a) and (b):
The North should not merely engage in serious mitigation but
also aid the South‘s adaptation.
(d) Rejection in any case of model:
Mitigation for the North and adaptation for the South
Since there are adaptation issues in the North and mitigation
issues in the South.
(e) Can poverty alleviation be subsumed under CC goals or made
wholly complementary?
Not subsumed: separate important goal
Sometimes complemetary, as with personal offsetting by
supporting third world development.
But much poverty alleviation cannot be so aligned and may at
least in the short-term be in conflict with both CC Mitigation and
Adaptation.
4.
Theories of global justice
(a) Can CCE and DE be brought together into a single ethical
theory?
Yes and no.
(i) In the long run these goals are broadly the same concerning
sustaining the conditions of human flourishing
They are not however identical since being concerned with
present and future poverty alleviation is distinct from the
overall CC rationale – each can be means to the other.
(ii)
But in the short term, areas of significant conflicts.
Does a principle like Greenhouse Development Rights get
round this?
A unifying concept useful but does not remove real conflict.
Global justice is in fact multi-dimensional (other issues as
well to do with peace, human rights) and has its internal
dilemmas and hard cases.
CC (global) justice treated as discrete or on its own is a
misnomer.
(b) Cosmopolitan basis: this needs to be made explicit (though it
already implicit in the earlier argument)
5.
Agency: who are the agents?
(a) States and other institutions: critique of their practices from a
cosmopolitan point of view;
(b) Individuals: duty to mitigate and to help reduce poverty partly
caused by the need to adapt;
(c) Thorny question of the extent of obligation: different answers
for states and for individuals.