Climate Change Action

Arguements on climate change, seem to have receeded from the mainstream. However, some of the premises used have not been publically discredited. For example the case for action was hindered by arguments based on certainty of the science, we have largely stopped having these arguments as the science is solid: we have a problem. However, there are still error bars around various climate impacts, a good example being sea level rise. So this sort of argument will raise it's ugly head again. What is needed is a more clear eyed look at the decison being made. Who has the right to decide weather a certain level of climate change is dangerous? What is the moral case for developed nations cutting emissions slowly, while the risk is placed on the inhabitants of low island developing states? Climate change arguments are widely distorted in the media, a whole range of arguments need to be grounded in a moral framework. So many of the cliched arguments are based on premises which if applied to every day situations would bee seen as farsical. The Rock Ethics Institute at Penn State University is looking at these issues in detail.

A few interesting talks from the Rock Ethics Institute.