science do not obviously fit together. For instance,
the question of the appropriate role of values in
science is a long-standing debate in the philosophy of science. It is often perceived as inappropriate for values to “to intervene on the evaluation
scientific hypotheses” promoting a view that scientific hypothesis should be as value-free as possible [200, 203, 204]. However, there is support
for the idea that there is an appropriate place for
values within science. There is extensive support
backing the use of social, political, and ethical
values in the selection of research priorities and
determining “which technological applications of
scientific knowledge to pursue” [200]. The aim of
this section is to embrace the exchange between
scientists and philosophers by describing the ethical implications of the global environmental
change and the ethical implications of some of
the scientific results and technologies that are
being developed to deal with these issues. Raising
the scientific and ethical discussions together will
hopefully represent the issues of climate change
more holistically, providing a more realistic representation of these issues.
Climate Change: A Perfect Moral Storm
Scientific, political, and economic research on
climate change has dominated the academic and
public discussions of climate change, despite it
being an inherently ethical issue [71, 72]. This
failure to evaluate climate change holistically
has led to a fragmented debate which in turn has
led to one of the key aspects of climate change
being ignored: how to inspire change in individual
and collective action. Philosophical analysis can
be invaluable in shedding light on important problems and potential solutions beyond the reach of
scientific and economic analyses [78–80].
The analyses of the ethical dimensions of climate change are varied but could be grouped into
three broad categories: global justice, ecological
justice, and intergenerational justice [81]. However, these categories are by no means exhaustive,
and not all the ethical issues fit neatly into one
category or into any of them.
The ethical problems that climate change creates are particularly large and messy, which philosopher Steven Gardiner (2006) [84] has
summarized: “climate change involves the convergence of a set of global, intergenerational and
theoretical problems. This convergence justifies
calling it a ʻperfect moral stormʼ” (see also [77]).
In fact, this perfect moral storm not only does
make answering these ethical questions difficult
but also makes effective action to combat the
problem harder. This is because climate change
complicates our ethical analyses and relationships
and creates suitable conditions for moral corruption whereby those in power can effectively
ignore the problems and delay action until it is
too late. Moral corruption instantiates by “subvert
[ing] our understanding of what is at stake” ([77],
pp. 45–46) by undermining our moral language
and arguments to serve the purposes of the morally corrupted. What is particularly problematic is
that most of the victims of climate change – future
generations and nonhumans – are not able to
participate in the discussion since they have not
yet been born or are otherwise unable to communicate and/or understand the problem to
begin with.
Similarly to Gardiner, the seriousness of climate change as a moral problem has led philosopher Dale Jamieson to lament: “Today we face the
possibility that the global environment may be
destroyed, yet no one will be responsible. This is
a new problem” [160]. Jamieson has argued that
climate change poses such a great moral problem
that we need a new environmental ethic altogether
to help unravel the complicated relationships of
responsibility for climate change. For Jamieson,
anthropogenic climate change poses a challenge
to our understanding of “rational self-interest,
ethics and justice among states” [160]. According
to Jamieson, climate change struggles to gain
traction and inspire action because of its complex
and asymmetrical structure as a moral problem
across different sectors of society. The reason
why climate change is so problematic as a moral
dilemma is because the challenges it poses range
across different dimensions – relational, temporal,
and spatial. Most ethical models of responsibility
are based on clear person-to-person interactions,
such as telling a lie to a friend or stealing a bicycle.
Climate change on the other hand operates on a
completely different scale as an international,
Air Pollution and Climate Change: Sustainability, Restoration, and Ethical Implications
309
the question of the appropriate role of values in
science is a long-standing debate in the philosophy of science. It is often perceived as inappropriate for values to “to intervene on the evaluation
scientific hypotheses” promoting a view that scientific hypothesis should be as value-free as possible [200, 203, 204]. However, there is support
for the idea that there is an appropriate place for
values within science. There is extensive support
backing the use of social, political, and ethical
values in the selection of research priorities and
determining “which technological applications of
scientific knowledge to pursue” [200]. The aim of
this section is to embrace the exchange between
scientists and philosophers by describing the ethical implications of the global environmental
change and the ethical implications of some of
the scientific results and technologies that are
being developed to deal with these issues. Raising
the scientific and ethical discussions together will
hopefully represent the issues of climate change
more holistically, providing a more realistic representation of these issues.
Climate Change: A Perfect Moral Storm
Scientific, political, and economic research on
climate change has dominated the academic and
public discussions of climate change, despite it
being an inherently ethical issue [71, 72]. This
failure to evaluate climate change holistically
has led to a fragmented debate which in turn has
led to one of the key aspects of climate change
being ignored: how to inspire change in individual
and collective action. Philosophical analysis can
be invaluable in shedding light on important problems and potential solutions beyond the reach of
scientific and economic analyses [78–80].
The analyses of the ethical dimensions of climate change are varied but could be grouped into
three broad categories: global justice, ecological
justice, and intergenerational justice [81]. However, these categories are by no means exhaustive,
and not all the ethical issues fit neatly into one
category or into any of them.
The ethical problems that climate change creates are particularly large and messy, which philosopher Steven Gardiner (2006) [84] has
summarized: “climate change involves the convergence of a set of global, intergenerational and
theoretical problems. This convergence justifies
calling it a ʻperfect moral stormʼ” (see also [77]).
In fact, this perfect moral storm not only does
make answering these ethical questions difficult
but also makes effective action to combat the
problem harder. This is because climate change
complicates our ethical analyses and relationships
and creates suitable conditions for moral corruption whereby those in power can effectively
ignore the problems and delay action until it is
too late. Moral corruption instantiates by “subvert
[ing] our understanding of what is at stake” ([77],
pp. 45–46) by undermining our moral language
and arguments to serve the purposes of the morally corrupted. What is particularly problematic is
that most of the victims of climate change – future
generations and nonhumans – are not able to
participate in the discussion since they have not
yet been born or are otherwise unable to communicate and/or understand the problem to
begin with.
Similarly to Gardiner, the seriousness of climate change as a moral problem has led philosopher Dale Jamieson to lament: “Today we face the
possibility that the global environment may be
destroyed, yet no one will be responsible. This is
a new problem” [160]. Jamieson has argued that
climate change poses such a great moral problem
that we need a new environmental ethic altogether
to help unravel the complicated relationships of
responsibility for climate change. For Jamieson,
anthropogenic climate change poses a challenge
to our understanding of “rational self-interest,
ethics and justice among states” [160]. According
to Jamieson, climate change struggles to gain
traction and inspire action because of its complex
and asymmetrical structure as a moral problem
across different sectors of society. The reason
why climate change is so problematic as a moral
dilemma is because the challenges it poses range
across different dimensions – relational, temporal,
and spatial. Most ethical models of responsibility
are based on clear person-to-person interactions,
such as telling a lie to a friend or stealing a bicycle.
Climate change on the other hand operates on a
completely different scale as an international,
Air Pollution and Climate Change: Sustainability, Restoration, and Ethical Implications
309