AGENDA
- Peter Singer
- Next time: second half of Singer
Problem #2: Suppose we should prevent further climate change. How should we divide the burden among nations? Let's tie this question to the real world...
The Paris Agreement (2015)
- Sets goal of limiting temperature rise (in 2100) to 2 degrees C. (3.6 F), or preferably 1.5 (2.7 F).
- Countries create NDCs (nationally determined contributions to mitigation)
- Countries communicate contributions to adaptation
- They report back every 5 years and must make more ambitious plans
- Ratified by 196 countries -- US left in 2017 (Trump), joined again in 2021 (Biden)
 |
| SOURCE |
Greenhouse gases
- Our World in Data: Contribution to temperature rise by gas
Production of gases in different industries
- Our World in Data: emissions by sector
- Environmental costs of meat (Peter Singer)
- More on environmental costs of meat
NDC options
- Transition away from fossil fuels to renewables (wind, solar)
- Create emissions standards for industries, cars, etc.
- Pass carbon tax
- Pass meat tax :-)
- Subsidize electric cars
- Plant trees (carbon sinks)
- Etc.
PETER SINGER (chapter from Practical Ethics, 2011)
His main question: What is a just distribution of the burden of limiting temperature rise? In Paris Agreement terms the question would be: what is a fair NDC for each country?
"Imagine that we live in a village in which everyone puts their waste down a giant drain...." (p. 218)
- What's the rest of the story?
- What's the point?
Two approaches to a just distribution
- Historical principles--past contribution to temperature rise determines fair NDC
- Time-slice principles--ignore the past; judge fairness based entirely on present. (next time)
HISTORICAL PRINCIPLES
- Our World in Data--total emissions *** (this is what matters)
- Our World in Data--per capita emissions
- Our World in Data -- GDP per capita
- Population figures
- Fairness problem: Is it fair for Canada and India to have the same NDC based on similar past emissions?
- India: 1.4 billion people
- Canada: 38 million people (1/4)
- Somehow need to take into account population
Historical principle #2: Polluter Pays, but basic emissions for each person are ignored
- India: most emissions are basic
- Canada: some basic, some luxury
- Basic emissions for each person ignored--the higher the population, the more that's ignored
- Result: Canada's NDC should be higher than India's
- Our World in Data--total emissions
Historical principle #3: Same as #2, but responsibility starts when people know about climate change (around 1990)
- Our World in Data--total emissions
Historical principle #4: Principle of commensurate benefits and burdens (Wenz)
- Note: Singer doesn't discuss Wenz
- Consumption determines NDC, not production (some of which is exported)
- Our World in Data--consumption vs. production
Monday: time slice principles
Wednesday: should we be focusing less on mitigation and more on adaptation?
Friday (debate): what about geoengineering?