Since the Industrial Revolution, in the late 18th century, fossil fuels such as coal and oil have been extracted from the Earth and burned in engines to feed economic growth; a process that has led to the > emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Over the past 150 years, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a very long lasting GHG, has risen by more than a third, along with an increase of other GHGs such as methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons. The first half of this increase took place over two centuries, from the start of the Industrial Revolution to around 1973, but the second half of the increase occurred much more rapidly, in less than four decades. Human activity has already made the world warmer by 0.8 degrees Celsius than pre-industrial times. Three main features of this phenomenon are significant for making ethical arguments about climate change.
Sujatha Byravan Most GHG emissions come from countries that have become wealthy as a result of industrial development. Roughly two-thirds of the emissions are from the United States, Europe, and Japan, which have about a seventh of the world’s population and half its wealth. There is a correlation between emissions and wealth, so that countries that are wealthier generally have higher emissions. The average American has per capita emissions of about 18 metric tonnes each year compared to the average Bangladeshi, who emits about half a tonne of carbon dioxide each year. Each country’s consumption pattern points towards its emissions and in general the poor tend to consume much less than the wealthy. But there are also wealthy nations, such as Denmark, with per capita emissions of 7.2 tonnes per year, where a combination of national policy, natural resources and lifestyle choices have resulted in relatively low levels of consumption.
There is also a distinction that must be made between “survival” and “luxury” emissions: the difference between emissions from profligate lifestyles and those associated with energy uses for subsistence living. For example, the emissions arising from living in large, inefficient houses and flying for frivolous reasons are quite distinct from those associated with burning wood for cooking. As explained in the 2010 World Development Report, carbon emissions associated with providing electricity to 1.6 billion people currently without access would be equivalent to switching fuel economy standards for the 40 million sports utility vehicles or SUVs in the U.S. to those of cars in the European Union.
With very little >carbon space left in the atmosphere, what has emerged is the concept of a “limited carbon budget”, or an upper bound to the amount of GHGs that can be pumped into the atmosphere while still maintaining a stable climate. This budget has already been largely depleted by a few at the expense of the many. This feature can be called disproportionate accumulation, because one set of groups has used up not only a disproportionate amount of the world’s limited carbon budget but has also become vastly richer than the rest of the world as a result.
Delayed effects
A second feature, which one may term delayed effects, is that the climate system itself is a slow-moving animal, which means that it will take several decades, if not a century or longer, for impacts from GHGs in the atmosphere to manifest themselves fully: warmer oceans, melting ice, and altered weather systems, which will in turn generate other ecological effects. Indeed, no matter what we do now, it seems likely that the Earth will warm by at least another degree Celsius by the end of the century. Delayed effects have two kinds of implications. One is that people living today are only now beginning to experience the harmful effects of GHGs emitted by people generations past, but they have also reaped the cumulative economic benefits of growth and development. The second implication is that since greenhouse gases continue to accumulate, actions taken today will have consequences for future generations. Delayed effects thus points to an intergenerational asymmetry between the emissions and impacts, which raises a range of complex ethical concerns.
A third feature, asymmetrical impacts, relates to the fact that by most accounts the poor, particularly those living in developing countries, will experience far worse consequences from climate change than the wealthy, especially those living in rich countries. There is growing evidence that the worst effects of climate change will fall disproportionately on those living in sub-Saharan Africa, small islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and deltaic regions of South and Southeast Asia, Egypt and China. This is due to geographic and economic reasons. Many developing countries are on small islands or encompass low-lying coastal areas and other regions that happen to be especially vulnerable to natural disasters, which will be exacerbated by climate change. But perhaps more important, they typically do not have the resources to adapt to > climate change by such protective measures as seawalls and embankments or by extensive insurance arrangements. Indeed, the most vulnerable people will be those who lead subsistence livelihoods in highly risk-prone areas.
Given these ethical considerations, what is fundamentally at issue in Paris at the Conference of Parties (COP-21) will be discussed in future columns.
(Sujatha Byravan is principal research scientist at the Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy, Bangalore. Portions of this article are adapted from a previously published paper by the writer.)
