Ethics and Global Climate Change Essay Example
Ethics and Global Climate Change
Abstract This paper explores Stephen Gardiner essay, “Ethics and Global Climate Change”. It examines Gardiner’s argument that, “the richer nations should pay more of the cost for addressing global warming”. It takes a look at his reasons for believing this. Our textbook was utilized to write this paper.
In this essay, Stephen M. Gardiner argues about the ethics of the two leading strategies for dealing with the science of climate change; mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation strategies involve things like changing the way that we use technologies, such as fossil fuels which emits greenhouse, carbon dioxide. We would have to practice using energy more efficiently. An example would be to use more fuel efficient vehicles and building more energy-efficient buildings. Many skeptics believes that prevention is more expensive that adaptation and suggests that the money spent on mitigation would be better spent on helping the poor. But if we do nothing, there will be unpredictable consequences. Adaptation strategies are based on the fact that we have already committed to some warming due to pass emissions, and on the assumption that a significant change in the world’s climate will continue to rise for the next few decades. Gardiner suggests that the real issue is whether adaptation should be our only strategy and to just ignore mitigation. He believes that if we do nothing, we will experience gradual climate changes and an increase in severe weather. He also believes that if we attempt mitigation, we would also be adapting by increased tax rates on (or decreases in permits for) carbon emissions. He thinks that mitigation is the best was to address global warming. He suggests that a mitigation strategy would need to be phased in gradually and that the first steps would not be costly, but economically
Abstract This paper explores Stephen Gardiner essay, “Ethics and Global Climate Change”. It examines Gardiner’s argument that, “the richer nations should pay more of the cost for addressing global warming”. It takes a look at his reasons for believing this. Our textbook was utilized to write this paper.
In this essay, Stephen M. Gardiner argues about the ethics of the two leading strategies for dealing with the science of climate change; mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation strategies involve things like changing the way that we use technologies, such as fossil fuels which emits greenhouse, carbon dioxide. We would have to practice using energy more efficiently. An example would be to use more fuel efficient vehicles and building more energy-efficient buildings. Many skeptics believes that prevention is more expensive that adaptation and suggests that the money spent on mitigation would be better spent on helping the poor. But if we do nothing, there will be unpredictable consequences. Adaptation strategies are based on the fact that we have already committed to some warming due to pass emissions, and on the assumption that a significant change in the world’s climate will continue to rise for the next few decades. Gardiner suggests that the real issue is whether adaptation should be our only strategy and to just ignore mitigation. He believes that if we do nothing, we will experience gradual climate changes and an increase in severe weather. He also believes that if we attempt mitigation, we would also be adapting by increased tax rates on (or decreases in permits for) carbon emissions. He thinks that mitigation is the best was to address global warming. He suggests that a mitigation strategy would need to be phased in gradually and that the first steps would not be costly, but economically