In Australia economic troubles have made climate change a low priority. In the Maldives it has become a top priority. The low-lying nation will dedicate much of its tourism revenue to buy land elsewhere to resettle its people. Hard financial times will not make the ethical challenge of climate change go away
In a previous article I sketched a moral framework for thinking about climate change. I emphasised our solidarity with human beings of the present and the future and with the world. I also gave weight to responsibility. We must often act and lead when we have no certainty about the situation or the outcome of our action.
Our response must be based on the modelling that we see to be most probable. Although based on data that is certain, modelling cannot be more than probable. For that reason different responses to climate change can be offered in good faith, each appealing to its own assessment of the evidence.
Interpretations of the evidence, however, are not of equal weight. A strong majority, almost consensus, among scientists argues that climate change is real and is caused at least partially by human activity.
The strong majority view arguing that we face a serious threat to human welfare and to the natural environment makes it morally difficult for governments to ignore it in favour of a more comfortable view. If parents learned of a very persuasive threat to their children's welfare, responsibility would demand that they acted on it. Similarly with governments facing climate change. It is proper, though, to review the evidence.
Broadly speaking there are three possible approaches to climate change, each with its own moral consequences. The first approach argues that the evidence so far is explained better by normal climatic variation than by global warming. There is therefore no ethical imperative to reduce emissions.
The second approach argues that climate change is real, but that it cannot be mitigated by human intervention. Steps like reducing carbon emissions will be ineffective.
For the third approach climate change is substantially caused by human activity and can also be mitigated by human intervention. Most who adopt this approach argue that delay in reducing emissions will exacerbate climate change and the pain it brings with it.
To deny the reality of climate change is the most comfortable position because it does not demand costly change. For that reason its adherents need to