Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and the Precautionary Principle

On 1/25/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's assume that the present consensus is right: global warming is a real
> problem that is substantially caused by human activity; and the possible
> scenarios concerning future consequences of the problem range from
> relatively moderate -- mostly regional disruption -- all the way to
> catastrophic economic and social breakdown. What is the appropriate ethical
> stance for formulating public policy to address the problem?

Upon further reflection regardless of who is right we come to the same
conclusion. We must do moderate mitigation NOW. The worst case cannot
be solved by mitigation and must be done by adaption. A useful legal
fiction is to treat the difference between the two cases above as
natural variability because even if the problem is caused by humans it
cannot be fixed by them. There is a much greater difference between no
mitigation and moderate mitigation and the likely and worst cases (cf.
Jim Hansen's slides Randy posted of the differences between 1 degree C
and 3 degree C warming). By being paralyzed by the uncertainty we
turn the likely case into the worst case and THAT is immoral. What
Katrina taught us is not that climate change is true but rather the
effects of climate change fall disproportionally on the poor. If rich
Christians do not want to be inconvenienced by even the most moderate
of mitigations then they need to re-read the parable of the sheep and
the goats.

To sum up:

1. Plan mitigation based on the likely case because we simply cannot
afford to solve the worst case.

2. Plan adaption based on the worst case. Since global warming is
relatively slow errors in planning can be corrected as we see the real
effects of climate change.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 26 07:36:11 2007