Hi Ray, and hi everyone,

Ray wrote:
>Well Jim, you seem to be the professional ethicist here;

Ah Ray, another ad hominem . . . .   :-)   Now, I must say, this IS getting
tedious.

(FWIW, to let folks in on the joke, in another context Ray and I have been
discussing Wayne Booth's new book, _For the Love of It : Amateuring and Its
Rivals_ and some of Thoreau's writings, and so I take Ray's comment here to
be something of a humorous and loving electronic jab.)

how would you
>proceed?  Or anyone else?

Well, you're not going to get any sort of systematic, global theory of
"climate change ethics" from me, anyway.  But, <insert eye twinkle here>
SINCE you've asked, I'll sketch out some of the considerations I feel are
important when thinking about policy.

Given your condition of uncertainty as the fundamental base point, I'm not
sure that "all-out" approaches to global warming under the guise of the
"precautionary principle" are the way to go--yet.  (*YET* !)   Under the
worst-case global warming scenarios to which so many people seem so
irresistably drawn, some environmentalists are calling for nothing less
than the most Draconian measures they can imagine.  In contrast, I think
more modest and moderate policies are appropriate.  The moral values I
would invoke to underpin these more modest approaches would surely include:
(a) some principled ideal of moderation such as the classic Aristotelian
doctrine of the mean; and (b) a characteristically more modern economic
awareness of the negatives/costs of any such measures,  i.e. costs that
undoubtedly and inevitably will be born on the backs of the poor, the less
fortunate, etc.

For example, I read on one of the web sites recently mentioned here on this
list, that the coal-based developing economy of China is expected to equal
the United States in total greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025
(assuming everything stays roughly the way it is presently,
technology-wise).  If we make the total shutdown of coal-fired plants a
global policy goal, what will this do to the millions and millions of
people in China who are hoping for a material improvement in the conditions
of their lives?  What will this mean for the global balance of power, in
terms of geo-politics?  and so on and so forth.  (I am *not* a futurist, so
please don't look to me for that level of detail in these types of
discussions.)

Or take the example of people who advocate outrageously high taxes on
gasoline (aka carbon taxes) in order to curb consumption.  Well, that's all
fine and good; but those kinds of taxes hurt the poor more than they affect
the well-off; they hurt people living in rural areas more than they hurt
urbanites; etc.  And yet, regardless of how high the carbon taxes are, I
daresay that globetrotting environmental ethics professors will still make
it to their international global warming conferences.  Some kind of formal
approach to economic justice, then, must be part of the mix if we are to
advocate such market-based approaches to cutting emissions.

Additionally, I'd bring a historical perspective to the problems of policy.
William James spoke of a need for the "moral equivalent" of war in order to
galvanize societal action.   "So far," James wrote, "war has been the only
force that can discipline a whole community, and until an equivalent
discipline is organized, I believe that war must have its way.  But I have
no serious doubt," he continued, "that the ordinary prides and shames of
social man, once developed to a certain intensity, are capable of
organizing such a moral equivalent as I have sketched  .  .  .  .  It is
but a question of time, of skilful propagandism, and of opinion-making men
seizing historic opportunities."

We know from history that societies can do great things in terms of the
mobilization of effort when the need *unambiguously* arises.  Take for
example what happens in time of war--every last ounce of energy gets thrown
into an all-out effort, and amazing things then happen.  In contrast, the
global warming issue does not yet constitute such an unambiguous occasion
for massive (and I do mean, "all-out") mobilization of effort.  When the
time comes, and when our predictive knowledge about the potential
consequences of global warming is more firmly established, I suspect there
will be time enough to mobilize the efforts of everyone to the cause.  To
those who would (inevitably) object, "But by then it shall be too late!" I
can only say that perhaps they will turn out to be right when the time
comes.

Perhaps in the global warming case, we would do well to recall the classic
Greek figure of prophecy, who was doomed forever to be correct in her
predictions, but ever-ignored.  In some ways, Chris L. reminds me of
Cassandra, "the Trojan seeress who uttered true prophecies but lacked the
power of persuasion. So no one ever believed her words" (from
http://hsa.brown.edu/~maicar/Cassandra.html ).  Now, obviously this
observation isn't an attack on Chris personally.  Instead, I think Chris
and others simply would benefit from a real historical and literary
understanding that stretches back more than just a few hundred years in
time to include ancient history.  Then, and perhaps only then, he and other
environmentalists might just see the *kernel* of truth that is contained in
the adage that there's nothing new under the sun.  Now, obviously this
insight doesn't necessarily help us combat global warming in our time in
anything like a technical, ethical sense, Ray; and yet I do think that a
general policy of reminding ourselves, from time to time, of Cassandra's
ancient plight would go a *LONG* way to restoring civility both on this
list and in societal discussions of environmental problems in general.

You know, getting back to William James . . .   :-)  James's essay is
interesting in a number of ways for its general relevance to our
discussions here on global warming.  Like Cassandra, some environmentalists
may lack the power of persuasion.  In an earlier post to the list, I
suggested that environmental folks who are accustomed to getting all of
their information from Greenpeace ought to get out bit more, figuratively
speaking--you know, flex their mental muscles, broaden their intellectual
horizons.  To me, this is just a matter of good policy, epistemologically
and ethically speaking.  But there is a pragmatic reason to do so as well,
as James argues.  In "The Moral Equivalent of War," James writes:

"Pacifists ought to enter more deeply into the aesthetical and ethical
point of view of their opponents.  Do that first in any controversy, says
J. J. Chapman, *then move the point,* and your opponent will follow."

James continues, "So long as anti-militarists propose no substitute for
war's disciplinary function, no *moral equivalent* of war, analogous, as
one might say, to the mechanical equivalent of heat, so long they fail to
realize the full inwardness of the situation.  And as a rule they do fail.
The duties, penalties, and sanctions pictured in the utopias they paint are
all too weak and tame to touch the military-minded."

Perhaps, Ray, it is the case in many ethical and environmental disputes
that people simply fail to perceive the "full inwardness of the situation"
as it is felt by their opponents.  Certainly the haste with which some of
the activists on this list have shifted aggressively to the offensive--from
civil discussion to personal attack--is born not only of their impatience
with those points of view that oppose the environmental conventional
wisdom, but also from an unwillingness to truly listen to what is being
said.  But perhaps it is also the case, as James suggests, that the
environmentalists' "utopias," as they are presently painted--no cars, high
taxes--*are* simply too weak and thin a gruel to sustain our ongoing moral
involvement in "The Cause."

But hey, what do I know?

Well, Ray, I guess this just goes to show that other old adage, that you
should never invite a philosopher to dinner.  :-)   You just never know
what you'll be served . . .  some Greek tragedy here, a bit of American
pragmatism there, a little . . . well, you get the idea:  certainly there's
nothing "practical" here to suit the likes of you.  <grin>  You know, it's
just like Chris Lees said, philosophers have been at this philosophical
game for thousands of years, and they've never accomplished anything like
basic agreement on fundamental issues.  So what good are they, anyway?

But of course, in my characteristically optimistic view, I sense that we're
now rounding a corner and heading for something like consensus on the
global warming question--after all, it's really quite a simple issue, once
you get past the uncertainty of it all.   :-)   I'm also going to take the
liberty of inserting a cheery new title in the subject line .  .  .  I'm
sure that some of the "list fatigue" that many members undoubtedly must be
feeling right about now is due to the unvarying monotony of receiving
message after gloomy message titled, "Re: Truth of Global Warming."

g'night all,

Jim



>Jim wrote:
>
>>
>> Ray opined:
>> >There are several ethical issues that we *should* be addressing.
>> >
>> >1.  Under conditions of uncertainty, what are the ethical considerations
>> >that should be addressed.  And how?
>> >
>> >2.  Given that Edison Electric Institute believes that any reactions
>should
>> >be voluntary, what are the ethical considerations that should be
>considered
>> >there?
>> >
>> >3.  Other related *ethical* considerations.
>>
>> Okay, let's leave aside the messy questions about WHY there is uncertainty
>> with global warming predictions and go ahead and assume that global
>warming
>> is occurring, and also that human greenhouse gas emissions are a
>> significant cause of this warming.  What should we do?
>>
>
>Ray here:
>Those questions were posed on the assumption that there *is* uncertainty
>and/or differing interpretations of facts.  It is the existance of that
>uncertainty
> situation that raises, for me, the questions of how to frame the ethical
>question(s) and how to arrive at ethical choices.
>
>When such instances as global warming are addressed from the ethical
>standpoint, it doesn't matter whether we all agree on one or another set of
>facts or interpretations.  If we all agreed then, for me, arriving at an
>ethical position would be uninteresting (at this point).  When considering
>the ethical aspects of such situations of uncertainty it seems to me that
>there are different sets of "facts" to consider than would be the case if
>"agreement" is the issue.
>
>How would an ethicist frame the questions?  How would an ethicist arrive at
>conclusions?
>
>I don't know and am not sure how to start.  But I think that those are the
>sorts of questions that are appropriate for this list.
>
>There are other more appropriate and professional places to go if one wants
>to debate the "facts" of the warming issue.  The "facts" relevant here are
>those needed to address the ethical questions under the uncertainty
>condition.  What "facts" are relevant for that purpose?  Again I don't know.
>And none of the discussion so far helps me. (neither this time or the
>several times in the past that this has been argued)
>
>Well Jim, you seem to be the professional ethicist here; how would you
>proceed?  Or anyone else?
>
>I think that this a serious problem, but don't know how to approach it.
>
>Ray