Peter Singer, “One Atmosphere”

Aim of the chapter Show that there is no ethical basis for the current distribution of atmospheric capacity to absorb greenhouse gasses. “If we, as citizens of the industrialized nations, do not understand what would be a fair solution to global warming, then we cannot understand how flagrantly self-serving the position of those opposed to singing even the Kyoto Protocol is.”

Some Consequences of Climate Change Warmer oceans lead to greater damages due to hurricanes and tropical storms Increase in tropical diseases

Food production will become vulnerable due to droughts of greater length and severity Sea level rise

The ability to adapt Rich nations may be able to adapt without severe loss of life Poor nations are much more vulnerable Why are poor nations much more vulnerable to climate change than rich nations?

The Problem How to think ethically about a world with limited resources, a growing population, and a wide gap between the rich and the poor. Our ways of thinking about justice evolved in world where the atmosphere was an unlimited resource.

Rio and Kyoto 1988 IPCC 1990, 1st IPCC Report 1992, Rio, UNFCC Precautionary principle Right to sustainable development Differentiated responsibilities 1997, Kyoto Annex I, Annex II 39 developed nations agreed to limit GHG emissions (5% below 1990 levels) by 2012 Emissions trading

President Bush on Kyoto “I’ll tell you one thing I’m not going to do I I’m not going to let the United States carry the burden of cleaning up the world’s air, like the Kyoto treaty would have done. China and India were exempted form that treaty. I think we need to be more evenhanded.”

What is Equitable Distribution? Historical Principles of Justice (Non-Patterned) Non-historical Principles of Fairness (Patterned) Strict Equality Aiding the Worst Off Greatest Happiness

John Locke The Earth belongs to all people in common. We must leave enough for others of equal quality. We must not hoard or greedily exclude others from the Earth’s bounty We must not waste the Earth’s bounty by taking more than we need for survival and flourishing.

Historical Principle: Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) “Tragedy of the commons” Atmosphere as a pollution sink The average Americans use 15xs as much of the global carbon atmospheric sink as the average Indian The developed countries are depriving the developing countries of their fair share of the global carbon sink. You broke it you fix it.

Objections to Historical Principle Ignorance It would put too great of a burden on developed countries Impractical. Developed countries will never accept the burden.

Peter Singer http://blip.tv/slowtv/the-ethics-of-climate-change-peter-singer-tim-soutphommasane-p1-3843905

Time-Slice, Non-Historical Principles To stabilize at current levels would require an equal per capita emission of 1 ton/year Developing countries = .6 metric tons/year US = 5 EU & Japan = 1.6 to 4

Principle for establishing per capita allotments Aiding the worst-off (Rawls) Difference Principle: Inequalities are allowed if the improve the prospects of those who are worst off. For Rawls, the only reason for rich countries not bearing all of the responsibilities for mitigating GHGs is if to do so would make those at the bottom worse off. It can be argued from the Difference Principle that President’s Bush’s economic argument is defensible. However, the argument from economic efficiency is flawed for at least 2 reasons: asymmetric benefits and US economy is not that efficient.

Greatest Happiness Principle Preference Utilitarianism: “What proposal would lead to the greatest net satisfaction of preferences for all concerned.” Polluter-Pays Egalitarian Principles Difference Principle

Singer’s General Proposal “I propose—both for simplicity, hence its suitability as a political compromise, and because it seems likely to increase global welfare—that we support the second principle, that of equal per capita future entitlements to a share of the capacity of the atmospheric sink, tied to the United Nations predictions of population growth per country in 2050.”

Singer’s General Proposal “A well-regulated system of per capita entitlements combined with global emissions trading would, by internalizing the true costs of production, lead to a solution that is both fair and efficient. “

Fairness: A Proposal Principle for choosing principles: Most likely to increase global welfare Equal per capita is a political compromise that is most likely to succeed. Equal per capita is much easier on developed countries than historical principles

Objections Objection: Does not require developing countries to do anything? Reply: Not true Objection: Too dislocating on developed countries Reply: Emissions trading

Objections to Global Emissions Trading 1. Scientific & Technical Objection: We do not have the means to measure emissions accurately for all countries. Reply: As long as admissions estimates are fair they don’t have to be accurate. The UN could hold the money in trust.

Objections 2. Ethical Objection: While emissions trading is in principle fair to poor countries, because of many poor countries are ruled by corrupt governments the benefits would simply enrich these corrupt governments rather than help poor people. Reply: Don’t recognize corrupt governments

Down from the Clouds No ethical justification for the present distribution of GHGs Those opposed to the basic framework of the Kyoto accord are flagrantly self-serving We need a binding treaty that will achieve the goals of reducing GHGs This will require developing international institutions and laws that limit national sovereignty. This also means sanctions against countries that are doing harm