args

Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Thanks for the debate Idaho_Rebel. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the leading international body for the assessment of climate change, has stated that climate change has major environmental, social, political, and economic consequences. The issue at stake in this debate, whether developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the consequences of climate change, is thus quite necessary. Pro Case 1. What are the potential "effects" of climate change? Atmospheric CO2 concentrations will reach 400ppm by 2017, if not earlier, making a rise in average global temperatures inevitable. It has been predicted that urban "heat island" effects (the result of rising temperatures) will result in the death of tens of thousands of people across the world. Other predictions include: high-intensity storms and flooding, causing property and infrastructure damage; droughts threatening food and water supplies; wildfires, desertification, and soil erosion destroying agricultural land, raising food prices, and leading to large-scale migrations; and rising sea levels, devastating low-lying coastal settlements (including many major cities). Source: IPCC, 2011: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation - http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de... 2. Why do "developed countries" have a moral obligation to mitigate these effects? The potential harms caused by climate change should be readily apparent, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that there is some sort of obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change, regardless of which ethical precept is applied. For example, a utilitarian ethics (greatest good for the greatest number) is just as likely to recommend policies that mitigate the effects of climate change as a Kantian ethics (regarding the rightness of actions themselves). So then, the next question is: "who" carries the burden or moral obligation to curb the effects of climate change? The issue at stake here is one of responsibility: do particular governments have more responsibility than others? A reasonable principle to apply here would be the "common but differentiated responsibility" principle: the idea that everyone bears a responsibility to mitigate the effects of climate change, but those with the ability to pay have a greater burden to do so. We could apply other ethical principles, such as the idea of "intergenerational equity" (the debt to future generations) or "compensatory equity" (the debt to more socioeconomically vulnerable people). The conclusion of these principles suggests developed countries, who by definition are more advanced economically and technologically, have a greater burden to mitigate the effects of climate change than do currently developing countries. Con Case Re: "Contention 1" My opponent's argument, that the "economic impact of environmental legislation hurts the economies of developed countries," is flawed for two reasons. First, my opponent completely neglects the possibility of alternative mitigation proposals, some which might even have a positive effect on the economy. For example, the development of drought-resistant crops, storm-resistant housing, climate-resilient infrastructure, and secure food/water supplies could easily produce new jobs and stimulate economic growth. Indeed, there is no need to focus on CO2 emissions when other options exist. In low-lying coastal settlements, for example, we could build sea walls, which are not only cheaper but much more likely to protect than an energy tax. Second, my opponent's argument offers no reason to believe environmental legislation would hurt the economy. How would the EPA's national energy tax "kill jobs" and "stop economic growth"? How would it make "tilling a field" and "operating a feedlot" impossible? The only answer my opponent provides to these questions is "foreign competition." This fear is unfounded, however, because the EPA's regulations only apply to global industries (domestic industries would be unaffected since they all operate under the same restrictions). Moreover, since fossil fuels are already becoming more expensive relative to renewable sources, an energy tax would simply accelerate a transition to "green energy" that is already underway, including the retraining of carbon-intensive industries for "green jobs." The U.S. economy as a whole would remain competitive. Re: "Contention 2" The argument that humans are not responsible for climate change is irrelevant: assuming climate change is harmful to the well-being of humans, it would not matter who or what was responsible for the harm. The issue at stake in this debate is who is responsible for cleaning up the mess, not who is responsible for creating the mess. To clarify this point, consider Peter Singer's example of a child drowning in a shallow pond: do we have a moral obligation to rescue the child? Yes, we do. Now, suppose someone pushed the child into the shallow pond; does this fact suddenly absolve you of the moral obligation to rescue the child? No, it doesn't. The burden of mitigating the effects of climate change falls on humanity as a whole, with a greater burden placed on those who can better afford to pay for mitigation proposals. The issue of who is responsible for climate change is thus irrelevant. Re: "Contention 3" My opponent argues that "nations are not moral entities," so therefore the "idea that a country would have a 'moral obligation' is unethical on the basis of Ethical Relativism." The argument is not only entirely incoherent (how can something be objectively "unethical" on the basis of "Ethical Relativism"?), but its premises are flat-out wrong. The problem is that my opponent confuses descriptive ethics with normative ethics, taking the existence of different moral views (it is true that different individuals, cultures, and countries can have different moral doctrines) to establish the lack of a true morality that "nation-states ought to abide by." Just because a particular individual or nation believes their moral view is the right one does not make it right. A culture might practice slavery or cannibalism, but the fact they believe these practices ethical does not make itself make these practices ethical. If we employ an objective ethical framework, such as a utilitarian or deontological ethics which both make claims of universality and objectivity, then my opponent's argument is clearly misguided. But suppose we grant my opponent his claim of ethical relativism, that does not mean no ethical precept can be established. It simply means that, from our perspective, what is right is determined by what we believe. That does not mean what we believe is not a "standard ethical or moral policy." On the contrary, the whole point of ethical relativism is to establish that our morality is situated in our specific culture, and since our culture is one in which protecting the life and property of our citizens is of ethical importance, mitigating climate change is thus also important. The other point my opponent makes - that individuals, not nations, are moral entities - makes no sense. A country or government has the choice - rational free choice - to make decisions and affect the world, just like an individual. This simple fact makes a country a "moral entity," in the sense that my opponent uses the term. The distinction between individual and country does not hold up, because countries are simply the association of individuals for a specific purpose under a particular name. This allows countries to function in the same way as individuals, making them moral entities.