>Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:05:46 +0000
>Subject: [EE] Climate change, uncertainty, and how to live
>From: David and Lesley Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
>
>I'm wondering if one can formulate a coherent ethical response to
>a situation where there is such uncertainty about future outcomes -
>when the outcomes may have radically different ethically relevant
>consequences.
>
>
>Well, I'm a scientist who is interested in ethics, but who is very far
>from being an expert in ethics. If I've said anything daft above,
>I hope you'll let me know!
>
>-David.

	I, too, am a scientist/engineer interested in ethics and one who was
somewhat involved in space programs and atmospheric effects. Currently, I'm
torn between the "sky is falling" verbage by too many including Al Gore and
the concern that for whatever cause, the "Global warming" might be real
and, worse yet, there might not be a gradual change where we could really
recognize the cause/effect in time to do something about it. It could be,
as some records are showing, a major change of several degrees, both
warming and cooling, that have occurred in reasonably recent global
history, say, within 50,000 years. That would be catastrophic and probably
beyond human capability to stop.

	Some mentioned the fact that human emissions from fossil fuel burning is
quite small on the total CO2 and I tend to agree and even wonder if, in
fact, its even less. While we accurately measure energy consumption and CO2
emissions in the so-called 1st world, as far as I know, we don't measure
and quantify the CO2 going into the atmosphere from the burning of the
rainforest for subsistance farming in the 3rd world nations. Partly this is
lack of technology in the regions but, quite often, its because modern
political correctness, i.e., modern ethical nonsense, that prevents us from
making and publicizing those effects. The "FACT" that the ozone hole effect
is larger in the southern hemisphere and the "FACT" that there is little
atmospheric mixing between the hemispheres also tends to lead one away from
blaming the 1st world nation emissions as the "MAJOR" cause of global
warming and CO2 increases.

	And, as to ethics again, where is a reasonable and honest comparsion of
the "REAL" risks of nuclear power compared to those of fossil fuel power
where fly ash from coal-burning power plants is the greatest single
quantity of radioactive material for containment and permanent disposal
where permanent really is a large number since the radioactive materials
are radium and uranium locked up in the coal with extremely long
half-lives? Oh Yes, a coal burning power plant puts more radioactivity off
its site than a nuclear plant of the same size is allowed to.

	Ethics, science, they should go together and, moreover, we need to
consider political correctness in the same discussion.

Fred Schaff, Spring Grove, PA, USA <[log in to unmask]>
	LAWS OF DISCUSSION
1: In total agreement, there is no net communication possible.
2: In total disagreement, there is no net communication possible.
	JOHN W. CAMPBELL=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:16:28 -0800
Reply-To:     [log in to unmask]
Sender:       enviroethics
From:         "Kate O'Donnell or John Davidson" <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: nope
Subject:      Re: Ethical Ecological Economics
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Ho,

I missed the citation for the article that goes with the abstract
below.  Could someone provide the cite?  It seems relevant to some
research I'm doing.  Thanks!

> > ETHICAL THEORY VERSUS UNETHICAL PRACTICE:RADIATION PROTECTION AND
> FUTURE
> > GENERATIONS
> > 
> > ABSTRACT 
> > 
> > The main international standard-setting agencies for ionizing
> radiation,
> > the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the International
> > Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) both subscribe to
> principles
> > which (they claim) lead to equitable protection for all generations
> exposed
> > to radioactive pollution. Yet, when one examines the practices both
> groups
> > support, it is clear that these practices discriminate against future
> > generations with respect to radioactive pollution. After showing (1)
> that
> > the IAEA and ICRP rhetoric of equity does not match their policies and
> > practices, the essay argues (2) that current people ought to try to
> treat
> > members of future generations equitably with respect to protection
> from
> > radioactive pollution. The essay also argues (3) that current
> policies of
> > permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste do not meet the
> second
> > criterion, and therefore (4) that society ought to investigate whether
> > another strategy for managing the waste would provide better equal
> > protection among all generations.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%