PB: We’re used to thinking about climate change as a scientific problem, or a political problem. In what ways can it be considered a philosophical or ethical problem?
MB: Well philosophy, and particularly ethics, is concerned with how we should live in the world - with what’s right or wrong, just or unjust, and with figuring out what matters morally. Climate change wouldn’t be a problem if it didn’t threaten things that matter morally. And because climate change is caused by human activities – many of which are also valuable – figuring out how to respond to it raises significant ethical challenges. To decide what to do, we need to answer various questions concerning what we owe to other people, to future generations, to the non-human world – all of these are ethical questions.
PB: Is climate change different from a ‘normal’ ethical issue?
MB: In many ways it is, and that is what makes it both interesting and challenging for philosophers. With climate change, we have an entire global population contributing incrementally, but not equally, to a highly dispersed harm. And that harm – resulting from extreme weather events, say – is difficult to predict and other factors – like political decisions - may intervene to change the outcomes. So – to borrow an example from environmental ethicist Dale Jamieson – compared to an everyday wrong like Jack intentionally stealing Jill’s bicycle, it is much harder to figure out who is responsible for the harm and what should be done to prevent or compensate for it.
PB: And I guess it doesn’t help that the people causing the majority of the harm are distant from those feeling the impacts?
MB: Indeed – inequality is really significant here. The people who are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change are, in general, those least responsible for causing it. The vulnerable may also be geographically and temporally distant from the major contributors to climate change, including many people who haven’t been born yet!
PB: We’ve talked a lot about uncertainty during the Green Capital year, and particularly how uncertainty about climate change should impact the way we act. What does ethics have to say on this?
MB: This is an interesting issue and the answer isn’t simple. Coming back to this question of inequality, one important thing to remember is that uncertainty doesn’t affect everyone equally. If you are short of resources, any change to the norm in your budgeting or planning might push you beyond your ability to cope. If you are resource-rich, on the other hand, you might be much more confident that you can cope with different, or unexpected outcomes. So we can see that the same level of scientific uncertainty will be felt and experienced differently by the rich and poor. Climate change, or rather the uncertainties around climate change, can then become a divisive force that exacerbates and reinforces existing inequalities.
PB: How else does uncertainty play into this debate?
MB: We also have uncertainties about how bad the potential consequences of climate change are, morally speaking, which create further challenges in figuring out what we should do about it. For example, I don’t think we’re really sure just how bad it is for human activities to cause species to go extinct, or entire and unique ecosystems to disappear. But if we don’t know how bad these outcomes would be, it is hard to know exactly how much we should be willing to sacrifice in an attempt to prevent them from happening.
PB: Are there ways in which uncertainty can encourage us to act more collaboratively?
MB: Yes, there are. If you are not sure about how climate change is going to affect you, it’s difficult to figure out how best to promote your own interests. If a powerful nation knew exactly what the effects of different global climate policies would be, it could try to pressure others into adopting the climate policy that best serves its own national interests. But in situations where nobody can be sure what policy will protect them, it makes more sense to pool risk with others. So you might set up an insurance scheme that helps those most in need, regardless of who they are, in case you end up being one of those most in need. Of course, there are altruistic and egalitarian reasons to set up such social insurance schemes, but in situations of significant uncertainty, where nobody can be confident in their ability to cope alone – even those who are purely self-interested may also have reason to support them.
PB: That sounds simple – why wouldn’t we all act in that way?
MB: Well those schemes work well when everyone is facing the same kind of uncertainty. Pooling risk may be less popular when some feel confident in their abilities to cope alone. This also brings us back to that question of how rich and poor may experience uncertainty differently – if you are sufficiently wealthy that you believe you can cope non-cooperatively, you may be less inclined to contribute to shared coping strategies.
PB: Thank you Megan, lots of food for thought! It’s invaluable to have a philosopher’s perspective.