Climate Change, Uncertainty and Ethical Superstorms

Abstract

I argue that one of the most urgent tasks of geoethics is how to deal with climate change in a just and equitable way. At worst, our current path could lead to multi-metre sea-level rise, increases in storms and climate extremes, causing devastating social disruption and economic consequences. I present some alternatives on how to handle this alarming prospect, arguing that we cannot condense our decision-making on climate change into numerical calculations, but should instead make ethical judgements. The commonly used expected utility maximation can be considered a gamble on future generations’ expense for the benefit of the current ones. Thus, from a Rawlsian perspective, we will instead choose the maximin principle, which tells us to adopt the alternative whose worst outcome is superior to the other alternatives. Justice also requires us to make amendments for past emissions. A calculation of the cumulative cost of carbon dioxide emissions shows that developed countries bear the primary responsibility for climate change. A mutual debt cancellation between developed countries’ carbon debts versus developing countries’ conventional monetary debt would solve past grievances, while unilateral measures to curb climate change would provide examples for others to follow.