Conclusion
It is perilous and paradoxical that climate
change, easily the most important problem facing human society, is largely ignored. Economic
development and the well-being of society
require energy, but producing energy, especially
from fossil fuel, generates air pollution and
greenhouse gases; the increasing effects of air
pollution and climate change make social development unsustainable due to the clear threat of
catastrophic effects. Therefore, it is critical to
rapidly transition to a sustainable economy, for
the human species and the ecosystem as a whole.
How much time do we have? A recent study
evaluates the risk of crossing a climate threshold,
a point of no return into an Earth system with
significant sea level rise, higher than any point
seen during the Holocene, and global temperatures warmer than in any interglacial in the past
1.2 million years [241]. This threshold is defined
by triggering strong, intrinsic, biogeophysical
feedbacks that would be difficult to influence
by human actions, “a pathway that could not be
reversed, steered, or substantially slowed”; crucially, it may be only decades away. There is a
narrowing window of opportunity to take action,
and the longer we wait to limit greenhouse gas
emissions, especially carbon dioxide, the more
rapid the decarbonization will have to be.
It is tempting to believe that there will be an
easy technological fix, but many authors and
expert panels have concluded that society must
transform itself. Since anthropogenic climate
change is an existential threat to Earth’s entire
ecosystem, risking our only home, every business, community, government, and individual
should take responsibility to tackle this problem
as doing nothing and continuing with business as
usual lead to serious injustice. The current situation is environmentally and ethically
unsustainable. However, inspiring individual
and collective action remains our largest challenge. Nevertheless, with political action,
broader public awareness, and better dissemination of information to all stakeholders across the
globe, we can realize the necessary changes that
society ought to accommodate.
Future Directions
As the climate and environmental crisis deepens,
understanding the ethical implications of science
and human technologies will is becoming more
immediate. Here we make recommendations for
future directions in scientific and philosophical
research in the areas of climate change and air
pollution.
Since technology appears to be the main factor
causing environmental degradation – climate
change and large-scale environmental damage
would not have been possible without technology – many philosophers have turned a critical
eye on technology itself. Even though “philosophy of technology and environmental ethics may
or may not be a match made in heaven” ([231],
p. 445), finding a common ground between these
two areas, and in addition science, may yield
solutions to our environmental predicament.
Both critical and more positive analyses of technology are needed. For instance, further research
into the ecological modernization thesis, which
analyzes how technology and market forces are
moving toward environmental healing and restoration, might offer an alternative way forward
[231–233]. Since we will most likely need to use
technology to capture CO 2 (via DAC, CCS), technology is also a necessary part of solving the climate crisis, but further research into the ethical
impacts of these technologies is needed to regulate
or rule out technologies which have unacceptable
ethical implications. For instance, it may be prudent to favor some CCS technologies/techniques
(e.g., reforestation, land use changes) over others as
they entail less risk and more direct co-benefits to
the environment [234–236]. The acceptable technologies should integrate with the ecological modernization thesis. Further research into the benefits
of developing these safer technologies compared to
more risky technologies is needed [237, 238].
Considering that energy technologies are
responsible for the “worst sources of planetary
pollution,” it is interesting that environmental ethicists have not spent more energy arguing against
these technologies ([239], p. 391). This is partly
because the harms are so obvious and well-known
and partly because their attention has instead been
Air Pollution and Climate Change: Sustainability, Restoration, and Ethical Implications
317
It is perilous and paradoxical that climate
change, easily the most important problem facing human society, is largely ignored. Economic
development and the well-being of society
require energy, but producing energy, especially
from fossil fuel, generates air pollution and
greenhouse gases; the increasing effects of air
pollution and climate change make social development unsustainable due to the clear threat of
catastrophic effects. Therefore, it is critical to
rapidly transition to a sustainable economy, for
the human species and the ecosystem as a whole.
How much time do we have? A recent study
evaluates the risk of crossing a climate threshold,
a point of no return into an Earth system with
significant sea level rise, higher than any point
seen during the Holocene, and global temperatures warmer than in any interglacial in the past
1.2 million years [241]. This threshold is defined
by triggering strong, intrinsic, biogeophysical
feedbacks that would be difficult to influence
by human actions, “a pathway that could not be
reversed, steered, or substantially slowed”; crucially, it may be only decades away. There is a
narrowing window of opportunity to take action,
and the longer we wait to limit greenhouse gas
emissions, especially carbon dioxide, the more
rapid the decarbonization will have to be.
It is tempting to believe that there will be an
easy technological fix, but many authors and
expert panels have concluded that society must
transform itself. Since anthropogenic climate
change is an existential threat to Earth’s entire
ecosystem, risking our only home, every business, community, government, and individual
should take responsibility to tackle this problem
as doing nothing and continuing with business as
usual lead to serious injustice. The current situation is environmentally and ethically
unsustainable. However, inspiring individual
and collective action remains our largest challenge. Nevertheless, with political action,
broader public awareness, and better dissemination of information to all stakeholders across the
globe, we can realize the necessary changes that
society ought to accommodate.
Future Directions
As the climate and environmental crisis deepens,
understanding the ethical implications of science
and human technologies will is becoming more
immediate. Here we make recommendations for
future directions in scientific and philosophical
research in the areas of climate change and air
pollution.
Since technology appears to be the main factor
causing environmental degradation – climate
change and large-scale environmental damage
would not have been possible without technology – many philosophers have turned a critical
eye on technology itself. Even though “philosophy of technology and environmental ethics may
or may not be a match made in heaven” ([231],
p. 445), finding a common ground between these
two areas, and in addition science, may yield
solutions to our environmental predicament.
Both critical and more positive analyses of technology are needed. For instance, further research
into the ecological modernization thesis, which
analyzes how technology and market forces are
moving toward environmental healing and restoration, might offer an alternative way forward
[231–233]. Since we will most likely need to use
technology to capture CO 2 (via DAC, CCS), technology is also a necessary part of solving the climate crisis, but further research into the ethical
impacts of these technologies is needed to regulate
or rule out technologies which have unacceptable
ethical implications. For instance, it may be prudent to favor some CCS technologies/techniques
(e.g., reforestation, land use changes) over others as
they entail less risk and more direct co-benefits to
the environment [234–236]. The acceptable technologies should integrate with the ecological modernization thesis. Further research into the benefits
of developing these safer technologies compared to
more risky technologies is needed [237, 238].
Considering that energy technologies are
responsible for the “worst sources of planetary
pollution,” it is interesting that environmental ethicists have not spent more energy arguing against
these technologies ([239], p. 391). This is partly
because the harms are so obvious and well-known
and partly because their attention has instead been
Air Pollution and Climate Change: Sustainability, Restoration, and Ethical Implications
317