causally, individual emissions are too small to
cause climate change, and thus individuals cannot
be held morally responsible for such harms. The
only obligation that individuals might have with
regard to climate change, he proposes, would be
political responsibility, since only political institutions which produce climate policy have the
capacity to respond to the harms caused by climate change. For instance, Baylor Johnson [91]
argues that individuals only have the responsibility to push toward collective agreements to deal
with climate change since individual actions are
not sufficient to address climate change. However,
Johnson has later withdrawn this position
[95]. These arguments are based on the following
claims: (1) individual greenhouse gas emissions
(GHG) cause only minimal if any harm to others;
(2) even if an individual chooses to reduce their
GHG emissions, this would not make a meaningful contribution toward reducing global GHG
emissions; and (3) the “obligation to reduce individual GHG emissions is overly demanding” [96].
There are also several philosophers who argue
that individuals can be held morally responsible for
climate change. For example, Marion Hourdequin
[97] argues for the importance of individual actions
and responsibility as they bear communicative value
which in turn will encourage trust in other individual
actors, thus making it easier to tackle climate
change. On the other hand, philosopher Trevor
Hedberg [96] has argued that individuals have a
prima facie duty to reduce their personal emissions
which is demanded of them by appeals to personal
integrity. According to Hedberg, the concept of
integrity not only helps to galvanize individuals to
political action against climate change but also provides them with strong moral reasons to reduce their
individual GHG emissions [96].
Ethical Implications of Mitigation, Adaptation, and
Geoengineering
Mitigation and adaptation are the two key strategies attempting to deal with different aspects of
anthropogenic climate change: “mitigation deals
with the cause of climate change, adaptation deals
with its effects” ([206], p. 24).
Ethical Implications of Mitigation Mitigation
has been defined by Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II as “a
human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance
the sinks of greenhouse gases” [207]. However,
what counts as a sink is not ethically straightforward. All the attempted descriptions of what can be
considered “as a ‘sink’ are normatively charged
because they must assume a specific answer to the
question, safe for whom?” [69]. Also, what counts
as a sink can raise ethical problems. Any destination
other than the atmosphere can be considered as a
sink; however, treating the ocean sink risks
compromising marine ecosystems due to ocean
acidification. Ocean acidification will have repercussions for the biosphere as a whole including
human food systems (see also the section on “Ecological Justice”). So, when considering sinks, the
emphasis should be on safe sinks such as soils and
vegetation [68, 69]. In particular, reforestation and
afforestation would not only be considered safe but
would also help combat deforestation [69]. Further,
the ethical issues of mitigation are relevant to the
development of sustainable mitigation policies and
technologies. The ethical issues that emerge from
mitigation policies are often related to the fairness of
global emissions trajectories [98–100]; for example,
the West benefitted from using fossil fuels, and it
would not be fair to now deny similar use to the
East. In addition, questions arise such as who should
pay for the research and development of mitigation
technologies, should the polluter pay, or should the
bill fall to society as a whole?
It is generally assumed, ethically speaking, that
mitigation is preferable to adaptation. As stated by
philosopher Henry Shue, “while mitigation is like
the prevention of an affliction, adaptation is more
like rehabilitation from the affliction, or in some
cases, successful adjustment to it while it persists”
[69]. Currently, many policy decisions are guided by
scientific and economic arguments; however, choosing between mitigation and adaptation based on
these arguments has been heavily criticized. Evaluating future risk in terms of today’s money is difficult and uncertain [51] and will “involve enormous
amounts of arbitrary evaluation” [69].
Ethical Implications of Adaptation Adaptation
attempts to take “the ‘danger’ out of ‘dangerous
climate change’” ([206], p. 24). One of the main
aspects of adaptation is vulnerability. Vulnerability
Air Pollution and Climate Change: Sustainability, Restoration, and Ethical Implications
311
cause climate change, and thus individuals cannot
be held morally responsible for such harms. The
only obligation that individuals might have with
regard to climate change, he proposes, would be
political responsibility, since only political institutions which produce climate policy have the
capacity to respond to the harms caused by climate change. For instance, Baylor Johnson [91]
argues that individuals only have the responsibility to push toward collective agreements to deal
with climate change since individual actions are
not sufficient to address climate change. However,
Johnson has later withdrawn this position
[95]. These arguments are based on the following
claims: (1) individual greenhouse gas emissions
(GHG) cause only minimal if any harm to others;
(2) even if an individual chooses to reduce their
GHG emissions, this would not make a meaningful contribution toward reducing global GHG
emissions; and (3) the “obligation to reduce individual GHG emissions is overly demanding” [96].
There are also several philosophers who argue
that individuals can be held morally responsible for
climate change. For example, Marion Hourdequin
[97] argues for the importance of individual actions
and responsibility as they bear communicative value
which in turn will encourage trust in other individual
actors, thus making it easier to tackle climate
change. On the other hand, philosopher Trevor
Hedberg [96] has argued that individuals have a
prima facie duty to reduce their personal emissions
which is demanded of them by appeals to personal
integrity. According to Hedberg, the concept of
integrity not only helps to galvanize individuals to
political action against climate change but also provides them with strong moral reasons to reduce their
individual GHG emissions [96].
Ethical Implications of Mitigation, Adaptation, and
Geoengineering
Mitigation and adaptation are the two key strategies attempting to deal with different aspects of
anthropogenic climate change: “mitigation deals
with the cause of climate change, adaptation deals
with its effects” ([206], p. 24).
Ethical Implications of Mitigation Mitigation
has been defined by Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II as “a
human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance
the sinks of greenhouse gases” [207]. However,
what counts as a sink is not ethically straightforward. All the attempted descriptions of what can be
considered “as a ‘sink’ are normatively charged
because they must assume a specific answer to the
question, safe for whom?” [69]. Also, what counts
as a sink can raise ethical problems. Any destination
other than the atmosphere can be considered as a
sink; however, treating the ocean sink risks
compromising marine ecosystems due to ocean
acidification. Ocean acidification will have repercussions for the biosphere as a whole including
human food systems (see also the section on “Ecological Justice”). So, when considering sinks, the
emphasis should be on safe sinks such as soils and
vegetation [68, 69]. In particular, reforestation and
afforestation would not only be considered safe but
would also help combat deforestation [69]. Further,
the ethical issues of mitigation are relevant to the
development of sustainable mitigation policies and
technologies. The ethical issues that emerge from
mitigation policies are often related to the fairness of
global emissions trajectories [98–100]; for example,
the West benefitted from using fossil fuels, and it
would not be fair to now deny similar use to the
East. In addition, questions arise such as who should
pay for the research and development of mitigation
technologies, should the polluter pay, or should the
bill fall to society as a whole?
It is generally assumed, ethically speaking, that
mitigation is preferable to adaptation. As stated by
philosopher Henry Shue, “while mitigation is like
the prevention of an affliction, adaptation is more
like rehabilitation from the affliction, or in some
cases, successful adjustment to it while it persists”
[69]. Currently, many policy decisions are guided by
scientific and economic arguments; however, choosing between mitigation and adaptation based on
these arguments has been heavily criticized. Evaluating future risk in terms of today’s money is difficult and uncertain [51] and will “involve enormous
amounts of arbitrary evaluation” [69].
Ethical Implications of Adaptation Adaptation
attempts to take “the ‘danger’ out of ‘dangerous
climate change’” ([206], p. 24). One of the main
aspects of adaptation is vulnerability. Vulnerability
Air Pollution and Climate Change: Sustainability, Restoration, and Ethical Implications
311