I. Introduction - Global Ethics
Ethics is understood to be the domain of inquiry that examines claims about what is right or wrong, obligatory, or when responsibility attaches to human action. Global ethics is usually understood to be the field of inquiry examining ethical claims that apply universally to all citizens of the Earth. That is, global ethics examines the nature and justification of ethical norms that are argued should obligate all people. (Dower, 2002)

Interest in global ethics has increased recently due to; (a) the increasing pressure of global problems requiring global solutions, (b) the general phenomenon of globalization, (c) revived interest in citizenship, and (d) revived interest in cosmopolitism or global ethics. (Dower, 2002)

Many proponents of global ethics see new connections between people around the world as the basis for their interest in global ethics. For the first time in human history it is becoming obvious that people in one part of the world can harshly affect the human health and environment of people in other parts of the world separated from those who are causing the problem by time and great distance. Climate change is a strong example of this. However, there are many emerging global environmental problems that also can be understood as problems being caused by some people that harshly effect others. Examples include, the loss of upper atmospheric ozone, over fishing by trawlers from developed countries at the expense of subsistence fishermen in poor developing  countries, and long range transport of toxic chemicals in the atmosphere that are deposited at long distances from emissions locations. Some toxic substances are known to put animals and people at risk at great distances from the place of emissions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Editor’s note:  The following short post argues that we need to develop simple narratives about the ethical dimensions of climate change to effectively communicate the ethical issues. This is the first in a series of posts that will explore how to communicate to the public the ethical dimensions of climate change discussed in ClimateEthics.org.

Bringing the Ethics Debate Home
Much has been written about the ethical implications of climate change and the moral imperatives for governments to take action to mitigate causes, to aid adaptation to changing conditions, and to reduce poverty.  But most of this rhetoric has been aimed at negotiators or at decision makers at the national level.  The arguments often name and shame, and demand that governments take particular actions to combat climate change.

Such arguments are necessary but not sufficient to support international action.  We often forget that negotiators rely on domestic public support for their decisions.  It will do no good to negotiate a new agreement in Copenhagen if the agreement cannot be ratified when negotiators take the agreement back home.  Climate change action will require political support at the national, state, local, and individual level.

Read the rest of this entry »

Editor’s Note: This is a first in a series of posts that will examine the essential ethical character of climate change issues.  Later posts will also explain the significance for policy-making of understanding climate change as raising ethical questions. The following article was recently published in Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA) Bulletin published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

I. Introduction
Ethics is understood to be the domain of inquiry that explores what is right or wrong, obligatory or non-obligatory, or when responsibility attaches to human behavior. Are there features of global environmental problems that call for classifying them as essentially ethical problems with even greater force than some local or regional environmental problems? If so, what are these features?

Why is this important? If some global environmental problems are essentially ethical problems, then some of the excuses that nations often use to justify not reducing their contributions to the global environmental problems are ethically problematic. This is so because ethical obligations entail duties and responsibilities to others with the result that national policies may not be justified on national interests alone. That is, if there are ethical obligations to others to cease causing harm, then policy options must be responsive to these obligations.

Read the rest of this entry »

Editors Note: The following post examines procedural justice issues that have arisen when some countries from the global South have attempted to get developed countries to take historic responsibility seriously as a way of establishing just national allocations for climate change obligations. And so this post also touches upon a few issues relating to just allocation of national targets. The post also explores the impossibility of completely separating scientific issues from ethical questions. The article makes it clear that to model historic responsibility, ethical issues arise that cant be delegated to scientists alone for resolution.  Almost all scientific models of climate change issues require choices that need to be understood as raising ethical questions.

I. Introduction
The main components of what is now called ‘historic responsibility to climate change’ have long been discussed in international climate negotiations. Historic responsibility for climate change is often considered to be an ethically relevant criterion for allocating responsibility to reduce the threat of climate change. The issue has been on the table ever since the UN General Assembly mandated an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to prepare a Framework Convention on Climate Change. Under the early stages of UN climate negotiations, historic responsibility was addressed in terms of the polluter pays principle and past contributions to climate change. Most of these topics have now become discussed under the loose heading of ‘historic responsibility’ (Friman and Linnér, 2008).

Some argue that the issue of historic responsibilities has already been addressed by dividing the world into Annex I and non-Annex I while ascribing the bulk of emission reduction commitments to the first. Others assert  that Annex I countries have been avoiding their historic responsibility partly by not meeting their agreed commitments and partly by creating loopholes in the details of implementation policy allowing them to buy themselves out of moral obligations.

Read the rest of this entry »

Editor’s Preface:  The following post is the second of several posts that will appear in ClimateEthics.org focused on deforestation, climate change, and ethics. See, Uncertainty and REDD: an Ethical Approach to this Nagging Problem. http://climateethics.org/?p=95 Because of the large contribution to climate change from deforestation activities, the Bali Road Map adopted at COP-13 in Bali Indonesia by the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) made deforestation an important element in the international community’s strategy to reduce climate change’s threat.   It is widely believed that deforestation programs will be an important element in a new regime under the UNFCCC that will replace the Kyoto Protocol. Yet deforestation programs raise a host of ethical issues that ClimateEthics.org will explore in the months ahead.

I. Introduction
The Bali roadmap recognizes “that reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries can produce co-benefits and may complement the aims of other objectives…” By focusing on slowing deforestation rates there is an opportunity to combine the goal of reducing green house gas (GHG) emissions with the goals of preserving biodiversity and, possibly, lessening poverty. However, the agenda also recognizes the complexity of realizing the opportunity for co-benefits, “[due to] different national circumstances and the multiple drivers of deforestation and forest degradation.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Editor’s Preface:  The following post is the first of several  that will appear in ClimateEthics.org focused on deforestation, climate change, and ethics. Because of the large contribution to climate change from deforestation activities, the Bali Road Map adopted at COP-13 in Bali Indonesia by the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) made deforestation an important element in the international community’s strategy to reduce climate change’s threat.   It is widely believed that deforestation programs will be an important element in a new regime under the UNFCCC that will replace the Kyoto Protocol. Yet deforestation programs raise a host of ethical issues that ClimateEthics.org will explore in the months ahead.

I. Introduction
There is much about forest carbon that we don’t know and perhaps will never know. Yet carbon markets require that reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be precisely known. When you buy a pound of coffee you want to know you are getting a pound of coffee. Similarly, when you buy a tonne of CO2 emissions reductions from a forestry project, you want to know you are buying a tonne. Without this certainty, confidence in the market will falter and fraud could run rampant.

Read the rest of this entry »

Editor’s Preface: The following is one of a series of posts that ClimateEthics.org is focusing on to encourage ethical analyses of post-Kyoto regime proposals that are getting attention in the international community. As ClimateEthics.org has argued in a recent post, all proposals to replace the Kyoto Protocol will need to satisfy two ethical criteria. See, Minimum Ethical Criteria For All Post-Kyoto Regime Proposals: What Does Ethics Require of A Copenhagen Outcome, http://climateethics.org/?p=50. One, they must make sufficient reductions in global emissions to give the world hope that it can avoid catastrophic climate change. And second, the proposed regimes must put the world on pathway to equitable and just allocations of national emissions limitations. ClimateEthics.org now continues this analysis by looking at specific post-Kyoto regime proposals particularly in regard to how they satisfy the minimum acceptable ethical criteria of just national allocations. The following post is the first in this series on this theme.  ClimateEthics.org will conclude these analyses by contrasting, comparing, and evaluating ethical claims made by each of these regime proposals.

I. Introduction
The climate change problem is solved when we have stabilized atmospheric concentrations at a safe level. However, achieving this goal is time-dependent as the longer we wait to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuel (~70% of annual global emissions) and destroying terrestrial biosphere carbon stocks (~30% of emissions)  the more difficult and expensive it becomes to solve the problem (IPCC 2007). Furthermore, the longer we wait the greater the consequences of our inaction as the more harm caused to people, other species, ecosystems, and future generations (Stern 2007). From this perspective, solving the climate change problem is as much an ethical challenge (i.e., public ethics in the sense of the imperative to give moral consideration to the consequences of our collective actions and inactions on others) as it is a technical or finance issue.

Currently, we face a growing and alarming mitigation implementation gap – emissions of greenhouse gases are increasing at a faster rate than mitigation efforts can counteract. International negotiations are bogged down in a complex agenda around issues concerning mitigation, adaptation, technology and finance. A key stumbling block to negotiations is interpretation of the principle of common and differentiated responsibilities (CDR) regarding the respective roles of developing versus developed countries. CDR is a legal principle recognized by the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) to help guide negotiations. However, there is ongoing debate about its interpretation and relevance to the practical problems that are the focus of the road to Copenhagen (Third World Network, 2008).

Read the rest of this entry »