Module 6 - Global Environmental Risks
Quick Access to Introduction | What Are Global Environmental Risks? | What Is the Extent of Global Environmental Risks?
Why Are Global Environmental Risks Difficult to Address? | How Can We Address Global Environmental Risks? | Self-Test
Instructed by Prof. James Fanciullo
Introduction
In this module, we discuss some of the most serious global environmental risks, especially those posed by climate change, and also discuss some promising ways of changing to address these risks. Topics we discuss include:
The nature of global environmental risks, the main ones we face, and who would be most affected by them.
The extent of these global environmental risks and whether they may threaten human existence.
The main reasons these risks are difficult to address, specifically in the practical, moral, and political domains.
The main methods of addressing these risks – such as mitigation, adaptation, and abatement – and how promising they are.
What Are Global Environmental Risks? Who Will Be Most Affected by Them?
a. What are global environmental risks, and what are the main ones we face?
We can define global environmental risks as risks posed by changes in the global environment to human (and non-human animal) well-being. Typically, these risks will threaten anywhere from endurably bad to truly crushing or catastrophic outcomes. In any case, they will threaten human (etc.) well-being on a global scale.
Importantly, of course, these environmental risks have not come about unprompted. Unlike some other global risks, global environmental risks have been largely created by human activity. So, while the risks to human (etc.) well-being are themselves posed by changes in the global environment, it is of course worth bearing in mind that human activity is largely responsible for these threats to human well-being. Indeed, it is worth bearing in mind that the risks to global well-being discussed here are in large part the result of risks imposed by human activity on nature and the environment itself.
Perhaps the most important and well-known source of global environmental risk is the ongoing changing of the global climate, or climate change. The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and gas, creates the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. [1] When these gases enter the atmosphere, they effectively function to prevent the earth from releasing heat back into space. That is, they “trap” the heat in the earth’s atmosphere, much like the glass walls of a greenhouse. As a result, mass burning of fossil fuels – by running coal-fired power plants, powering and heating our homes, and even driving our cars – contributes to extreme increases in the earth’s temperature. At least since 2004, there has been a near complete consensus by physicists, geologists, and ecologists as to the anthropogenic causes of modern climate change worthy of the name Anthropocene, in which human beings (homo sapiens) are the primary evolutionary force responsible for the most significant changes on earth.[2]
Rising temperatures will come with extreme, and perhaps unexpected, consequences. Far from everyone simply sweating a bit more, increased global temperatures will mean more heatwaves, droughts, floods, famines, and extreme storms, and these events will become increasingly severe. In addition, a hotter earth will lead to a decline in biodiversity, the melting of polar ice, and increased sea levels, meaning the futures of entire cities that are at or near sea level may be at risk. The upshot is an immense amount of suffering, death, and destruction on a global scale. These are some of the main global environmental risks we face.
b. Who would be most affected by them?
Importantly, the effects of climate change will not be restricted to a certain region or nation. Countries who emit the most greenhouse gases, for instance, are not any more likely to feel the effects of climate change than those who emit the least. This is what makes climate change a truly global environmental risk. When we emit greenhouse gasses on a massive scale, we affect the earth’s atmosphere, which does not vary between region, country, or continent. For better or worse, the entire world pays the price for those who emit.
This is not to say, though, that we cannot identify any groups who stand to be harmed by the effects of climate change disproportionately more than others. So who stands to be most affected by climate change? Which groups would be disproportionately harmed by the bad outcomes presented by these global environmental risks? Generally speaking, we can identify two such groups: future generations, and the world’s poor.
First, for whatever risks we currently face with respect to climate change, these will be significantly outweighed by the risks faced by generation after generation of future people. Future generations stand to be disproportionately harmed, not only because there will be many more of them than there are of us, but also because, as things stand, climate change is only getting worse. Indeed, global greenhouse emissions continue to rise, and year after year reach record heights. [3] Not only do very many future people stand to be harmed by the effects of climate change, then, but they stand to be harmed even more than we do. These harms range from facing increasingly extreme environmental events, which will lead many to become worse off or even die, to the potential loss of entire habitable regions of the world, and beyond.
Second, regardless of the generation they’re in, the world’s poor also stand to be disproportionately harmed. History has illustrated that poor individuals, communities, and countries have been harmed significantly more than the wealthy in cases of climate-related impacts. In cases of severe climate events like heatwaves, floods, and extreme storms, those with fewer resources are flatly more susceptible to harm than those better positioned to prepare for and endure the impacts. [4] Indeed, sometimes, the resources allowing the wealthy to avoid harm – such as access to a car or extra electricity – will be the very ones that made the wealthy higher emitters of greenhouse gases in the first place. More generally put: while the wealthy enjoy the benefits of emitting more yet face less risk of harm, the poor emit less yet take on greater risk. [5]
What Is the Extent of Global Environmental Risks? Could They Threaten Human Existence?
a. What is the extent of these global environmental risks?
The extent of these global environmental risks will of course depend on the extent to which global emissions rise or fall in the future.[6] Risks vary along two dimensions: the likelihood of the bad outcome, and the severity of its badness. Increased emissions make global environmental risks greater along both dimensions. They make the likelihood of, for instance, famines, fires, and floods greater, and they make the severity of these bad outcomes even worse.
Keeping this in mind, it’s clear that just how threatening many global environmental risks are will depend on our response to climate change. On the global scale, the most recent major advancement here was the 2015 Paris Agreement, which is an international treaty involving almost all of the world’s nations agreeing to collectively limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, and preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels (or, roughly, around the years 1850-1900).[7] Despite the agreement, current policies around the world suggest that temperatures will rise 2.8 degrees Celsius by 2100.[8] Current pledges to reduce, if they are indeed acted on, suggest that this number will merely reduce to 2.4-2.6 degrees Celsius. Crucially, for context, 1.5 degrees Celsius was chosen – by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – as the number at which the worst effects of climate change would be avoided, and the climate would remain livable long-term.[9]
It is important to keep in mind just how long-term many of these global environmental risks (and their corresponding bad effects) are. It would be one thing if, once things got really bad, the world could collectively decide enough was enough, and collectively change behavior to swiftly bring an end to the terrible effects of climate change. But this is not how the climate works. Already, at least some of the changes caused by greenhouse gas emissions are irreversible for centuries to millennia.[10] As emissions and temperatures continue to rise, we have no reason to doubt that many of the negative impacts (which would be even worse) would be guaranteed for even longer, regardless of how desperately we tried at a later point to reverse course. Emissions produced over a lifetime can create changes that are irreversible for generations. This is in part why the threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius, and the extent to which we surpass it, is so crucial. Reversing any negative impacts or risks is likely to take far longer than it takes to create them, if reversing them is indeed possible at all. Waiting until things get even worse ensures that things will be even worse for even longer. To ensure we avoid the worst effects of climate change and that the climate remains livable long-term, immediate change is required.
The extent of global environmental risks is then very great. We are effectively almost certain to experience some of the bad outcomes associated with climate change – more floods, famines, and the like – but we are also on path to ensure that these outcomes become more frequent, and severe. More worryingly still, increases to the temperature beyond 2 degrees Celsius may involve reaching certain tolerance thresholds in the environment, leading to abrupt and extreme catastrophic outcomes.[11] In general, the threat of very many global environmental risks is great, and is only getting greater. Without change, the threat of truly catastrophic environmental risks remains salient as well.
b. Could they threaten human existence?
Earlier, I said that global environmental risks typically threaten anywhere from endurably bad to truly crushing or catastrophic outcomes. But there is another kind of outcome that is even worse than catastrophic: the kind of outcome in which humanity’s entire existence, or at least its potential to continue, is destroyed. If environmental risks threaten this kind of outcome, they are existential environmental risks. Do we face any such risks? Could we?
It is natural to think that threats to human existence are far worse than threats to human well-being. After all, the bad outcome in which humans no longer exist is one where there is no human well-being – what would have been many generations of future people is instead nothing. While climate change threatens to reduce the well-being of many future people, even more worrying would be the threat of there being no future people to begin with. Not only would the world be robbed of a vast number of future lives that would be good, it would also be robbed of humanity itself. If we think humanity is in itself valuable – or that it makes the world better even apart from the lives that make it up – then this too would be threatened by the risk of human extinction.
Fortunately, the consensus in science seems to be that climate change is extremely unlikely to directly cause human extinction.[12] It seems nearly impossible. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report, the worst case scenario for emissions by 2100 – the one in which any climate-friendly policies are reversed and fossil fuels are burned even when renewable energy is cheaper – is one where temperatures would have a small chance of rising by 6 degrees Celsius by 2100 (and, more likely, by about 4 to 5).[13] In an even worse scenario, where literally all available fossil fuels are burned, there is an extremely small chance that the increase could reach a peak of about 13 degrees Celsius. While such an outcome would have devastating effects on global well-being, it seems plausible that humanity would be able to adapt in order to, at least, not end entirely.[14] In short, then, in even the worst scenario that is even just slightly possible, climate change still seems incapable of directly causing human extinction (at least, in the conceivable future).
That said, it remains possible for climate change to indirectly cause human extinction, or for it to at least significantly contribute to other existential risks.[15] After all, the effects of climate change – such as greater scarcity of resources like water, greater risk of living in areas like those near sea level, and so on – are candidates for creating conflict. They could lead to severe economic changes, political unrest, or even global conflict. Exposure to extreme weather events is likely to increase the forced displacement of people, especially in low-income countries, and the unplanned migration that may result would have the potential for creating political tension and significant conflict.[16] In addition, well-known drivers of violent conflict such as poverty and economic shock are made more likely by climate change.[17] Finally, if climate change caused a significant shift in balance between certain nations, it is possible that war could result.[18] While these possibilities may seem distant, they are worth bearing in mind. In general, while climate change seems extremely unlikely to directly cause human extinction, the risk of it indirectly contributing to other existential threats should not be ignored.
Why Are Global Environmental Risks Difficult to Address?
1. What are the main reasons these risks are difficult to address? How have we gotten to this point?
Clearly, if the global environmental risks associated with climate change were easy to address, we would have already addressed them, or at least been in the process of doing so. Yet, as it stands, even if those pledging to reduce their emissions ultimately follow through, we will remain far from the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels. Why is this the case? What makes addressing the global environmental risks associated with climate change “difficult?”
While we will address some of the main methods of addressing these risks in the following section, it suffices to note for now that there are viable methods of addressing the risks available to us. We know that the main driver of these risks is the mass burning of fossil fuels, and thus emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. From this basic fact alone we might see an obvious solution: to address the risks, we should stop emitting (or, at least, significantly reduce our emissions). But there are a number of reasons that this solution is particularly difficult to implement. In particular, there are practical, moral, and political reasons for this. [19]
The practical reasons concern self-interest. We reap many significant benefits from emitting at high rates on the individual level. It enables us to heat and cool our homes, to drive to work, to fly to distant places, to eat meat, and so on. Fundamentally, it is largely in our interest to emit. That, after all, is how we have gotten to this point. If emitting made our lives significantly worse on a day to day basis, we wouldn’t perform the activities associated with it. Since the activities associated with emitting instead make our lives better on a day to day basis, we continue to do them.
That’s surely right, you might think, but what is in our interest is not always what we should do. It may be in my interest to have the money sticking out of your back pocket, but this does not mean I should take it from you. Indeed, even if I have a practical, self-interested reason to take the money, I have an overriding moral reason not to. Similarly, you might think, even if I have a practical reason to emit at high rates, I have an overriding moral reason not to. After all, these emissions are contributing to climate change, which threatens to harm many people in significant ways.
But there are several reasons our individual moral obligations with respect to climate change are far less clear than they may seem. To see why, we can examine this analogy between cases of stealing and emitting. My stealing from you is a paradigmatic case of performing a morally wrong action. What makes it so obviously wrong? When I steal from you, I (i) intentionally (ii) make you worse off, where (iii) I had the option of doing something else that did not involve you becoming worse off. (i) is relevant because, if I stole from you unintentionally – perhaps I genuinely believed the money was mine, or that you had offered it to me – I would be less blameworthy for having taken it. That is, my act would seem less wrong, and may not even be wrong at all. (ii) is relevant, of course, because making people worse off is a bad thing, and something for which we are blameworthy (at least when all else is equal). And (iii) is relevant because, if I genuinely had no other option but to take the money, or my only other option was to do something that made you even worse off – perhaps someone threatened to kill me if I did not take it, or my only other option was to gravely harm you – I would again be less blameworthy for having taken it (even if it was intentional).
So, intentionality, harming, and the ability to do something less harmful (or not harmful at all) are all morally relevant features of the case in which I steal from you. They are (at least in part) what makes my act of stealing a paradigmatic, obvious wrong.
But compare this with a case in which I emit. Imagine I take a joyride in an old, classic car, around a particularly beautiful area. I’m not commuting to work, driving to help a friend, or whatever else – the point of the ride is purely for my enjoyment in taking it. Since the car is an old classic, it’s not fuel efficient. In fact, it’s pretty environmentally unfriendly. Is my act in this case any different, from a moral standpoint, from my act of stealing from you?
In fact, it seems the answer is yes: it is relevantly different. For one, it is extremely difficult to establish that my act actually harms anyone. After all, suppose no one else in the world emitted any greenhouse gases, and I take my drive. In this case, my drive alone would not cause any climate change, and so no one would be harmed. So why think the situation is any different when others happen to be emitting? For another, it’s clear that even if my act directly harms anyone – which seems highly unlikely – I did not do so intentionally. Indeed, my only intention was to enjoy my drive, which has nothing to do with a rising climate, floods, fires, or famines. Finally, if others will ultimately become worse off due to the effects of climate change, it’s not clear that I had the option of doing anything else that did not involve these people becoming worse off. After all, just my drive alone cannot singlehandedly cause climate change, so my deciding to stay home rather than take the drive cannot prevent climate change or the future bad effects.
So, in addition to the practical factors that make climate change difficult to adequately address, there are also moral factors. When we emit, our acts do not typically have the paradigmatic features of clear moral wrongs. They do not seem to directly harm anyone, any harms they may lead to are not intentionally produced, and they are not alternatives to other options that would have brought on less harm. [20] In general, then, the main moral problem is that acts that collectively create climate change do not create it individually, and so these acts lack crucial features of paradigmatic moral wrongs. Commonsense moral principles and intuitions do not apply neatly to climate-unfriendly acts. As a result, we are less likely to be moved by the claim that “my joyride is morally wrong,” as we are to be moved by the claim that “my stealing your money is wrong.”
This relates to the third major factor as to why climate change is particularly difficult to address – politics. As I say, acts like taking joyrides do not individually create climate change, but instead collectively create it. In light of this, one natural thought is that the best way of addressing climate change could be at the political level, or the level that decides on policies and laws for collective groups of people. But, again, there are a number of similar obstacles here.
For one, to the extent politicians care about addressing the concerns of their fellow citizens, they are no more likely than those citizens to be motivated to address climate change. Lack of concern at the individual level infects the level of concern at the political level. For another, and relatedly, nations are largely self-interested in a way that is importantly similar to how individuals are self-interested. As we’ve seen, we reap significant benefits for emitting at high rates on the individual level. These benefits are only amplified when considered from the perspective of a larger collective or nation. Higher emissions mean greater production, which means an improved economy, which means generally happier people and (more relevant from the perspective of governments) various significant advantages over other collectives or nations. Finally, just as no individual act can prevent the bad effects of climate change, no particular country’s partial reduction in emissions can prevent these bad effects. If other countries continue emitting as they are, one country’s reduction in emissions will not ensure that agreed-upon global warming limits are even close to met. In general, then, we face similar problems on the political level as we do on the individual level. Self-interest and lack of moral outrage lead to inaction.
A final, related factor – which combines aspects of the three just mentioned – is the intergenerational structure of the problem. [21] The causes and effects of climate change will often span multiple generations. While one generation may be responsible for emissions that contribute to climate change, the most adverse effects of these emissions may not be felt until later generations. This creates a problem where each generation may be motivated to “pass the buck:” continue polluting, and defer the responsibility of reducing emissions to the next generation. [22] This cycle could continue, worsening the situation until a catastrophic outcome is brought about. The problem here can be generalized: the decisions of individuals, while seemingly rational, collectively lead to an outcome that is worse than if everyone had worked together. However, because the individuals in this case are entire generations, which may never interact with or even exist at the same time as the other generations they stand to impact, the solution of “working together” faces an additional, significant hurdle. Without direct interaction between the groups, any given generation’s motivation to sacrifice for the greater good is appreciably diminished. In short: the above practical, moral, and political factors are only compounded by the intergenerational structure of the problem.
Importantly, though, none of this is to say that we do not have individual moral obligations with respect to climate change. Nor is it to say that countries do not have such obligations. Instead, it is just to make clear how we have gotten to this point – how we have already ensured that climate change will have at least some bad effects, and how we are currently on track to ensure that these effects will be even worse. While your individual joyride may not have any bad effects, perhaps your climate-related choices for your life as a whole do. Perhaps, then, we should strive to live in ways that are consistent with a sustainable climate. Moreover, perhaps nations should create laws and policies that have that end as their aim. And perhaps these laws and policies are justified not just by their potential effects on existing people, but by their potential effects on many future generations. While the moral problem in the case of climate change is not as obvious as the moral problem in the case of my stealing from you, it remains a moral problem all the same. The only question is how best to solve it – not whether or not we should.
How Can We Address Global Environmental Risks?
What are the main methods of addressing these global environmental risks on the individual level? What are the more general forms of solution?
a. What are the main methods of addressing these global environmental risks on the individual level?
While the situation with global environmental risks may seem grim, one good piece of news is that we are very much in position to respond. Of course, one way we might reduce these risks – and indeed ensure that climate change increases global temperatures by no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius – is to simply stop burning fossil fuels, and thereby dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. But this is, practically speaking, an obvious non-starter. The burning of fossil fuels is a product of human interests. It is what allows us to heat our homes, to travel by non-manual modes of transportation, to power factories, and so on. From a practical perspective, we cannot simply give up on the energy, innovations, and benefits that emissions make possible.
This illustrates the earlier problem of self-interest. By and large, it is flatly in our interest to emit, and the advantages it allows for are now fundamental parts of our lives. Some simply need to drive to work in their gas guzzler in order to make a living. Many simply need to heat or cool their homes in order to live tolerably. But not all emissions are like these. Some – and perhaps many – are simply gratuitous. Driving a gas guzzler for fun, using disposable plastic bags or bottles rather than reusable ones, and keeping electricity or water running while not in use are all examples of gratuitous, environmentally-unfriendly acts. So, perhaps the most obvious, and most easily practically realizable way of helping is to avoid gratuitous emissions.
But while that is all well and good, it is unlikely to lead to the major changes in emissions we’ll need to reach our goal of capping climate change increases at 1.5 degrees Celsius in the long-term. While it’s certainly a good first step, and indeed may be admirable to participate in, we’ll need to do more than simply end gratuitous emissions. Unfortunately, very many people simply need to drive and power their homes in ways that are not gratuitous, and collectively these acts strain the environment. So yes: by all means, strive to drive less, recycle more, conserve energy and water, and eat less factory farmed meat. But this, by itself, may not be enough to ensure the bad effects of climate change are avoided. Basic human self-interest – and especially self-interested behavior of the gratuitous, morally objectionable sort – is driving climate change on a global scale.
Yet if self-interest is indeed the primary driver of climate change, then perhaps we can use this fact to make things better. That is, perhaps by realizing that self-interest is at the core of climate-unfriendly behavior, we can incentivize climate-friendly behavior by making it more advantageous than climate-unfriendly behavior. Consider, for instance, cars. Not long ago, the original hybrid and fully electric cars were widely regarded as unsightly, and only attractive insofar as one was worried about the environment. Nowadays, electric cars are among the most trendy and sleek-looking cars on the market, and many governments provide incentives for owning them. As a result, electric cars are surging in popularity. Importantly, electric cars may even be attractive to those who have no interest in improving the environment. Their interests happen to lead to environmentally-friendly behavior, even if they have no (or perhaps just a little) concern for the environment. In short: the self-interested behavior has become the environmentally-friendly one.
The incentives for environmentally-friendly behavior may be more direct, as when one has a desire for a trendy car and electric cars are the trendiest, or imposed, as when governments offer monetary and tax incentives for buying and producing electric cars. In any case, at least with respect to the most common and most environmentally-unfriendly behaviors, these incentives may considerably reduce emissions. Innovations in this space would have the potential to massively reduce emissions. Another significant example here is the development of lab-grown or plant-based meat products, which could eventually replace natural meats altogether. While this is unlikely to happen any time in the near future, the impacts it would have on the environment would be immense. After all, perhaps surprisingly, research has suggested that livestock farming may be responsible for at least 51% of global greenhouse gas emissions. [23] Needless to say, if plant-based meat products could eventually become indistinguishable from natural meat products, the environment would be spared immense additional pressure.
In short, then, since self-interest largely drives climate change, there are at least two promising ways to reduce climate change on the individual level. One is to reduce our individual emissions, or at least our gratuitous emissions. The other is to develop incentives for performing environmentally-friendly behavior. This may be done by introducing environmentally-friendly alternatives that people already find attractive, or by imposing monetary, tax, or other policy incentives.
b. What are the more general forms of solution?
It is worth noting, though, that the incentives for performing environmentally friendly behavior just mentioned are examples of just one kind of solution or response to climate change. That is, there are multiple ways of responding to climate change, and the introduction of environmentally-friendly options and the imposition of policy incentives for adopting those options are examples of just one of these ways of responding to climate change. In particular, they are examples of abatement. But other forms of solution include mitigation, adaptation, and geoengineering. [24] Solutions of each of these forms ultimately aim to reduce the global environmental risks associated with climate change. We’ll consider each in turn.
Climate change, we’ve seen, arises as a result of excessive emissions of greenhouse gases into the earth’s atmosphere. In light of this, perhaps the most natural thought is that we should respond to this issue simply by reducing our emissions. After all, the problem is the level of emissions, so perhaps the solution is to reduce them. Solutions of this form are instances of abatement, or solutions that reduce emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere. This can be done, as we’ve seen, by replacing our high-emission alternatives (like gas guzzlers) with low-emission ones (like electric cars), or by introducing policy incentives (like those for electric cars) to encourage the choice of low-emission options. Similar forms of abatement include reducing energy and water consumption, driving less, replacing fossil fuels with other sources of energy, and many other ways of simply reducing our emissions.
But while this is perhaps the most obvious form of response to climate change, it is not the only one. Again, we know the problem is excessive emission of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. But part of the problem is precisely that these gases, once emitted, remain in the atmosphere, and effectively function to prevent the earth from releasing heat back into space. This suggests another form of solution: mitigation, or solutions that reduce the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Examples here include planting trees and growing plants, and protecting forests, grasslands, wetlands, and oceans. These are all examples of enhancing or protecting what are known as carbon sinks, or things that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by absorbing more than they release. Fostering carbon sinks is the main way of mitigating climate change.
As we’ve also seen, however, with respect to at least some of climate change’s potential bad effects, it is already too late. We can be certain that climate change will have at least some bad effects. While the first two forms of solution to climate change focus on greenhouse gases (both emissions and current concentrations), and thus on avoiding making things worse than they already are, the third focuses on reducing the negative impacts that may or will come. That is, this form of solution, or adaptation, encompasses any solution that reduces the bad effects or impacts of climate change. These solutions thus take the bad effects as a starting point, and aim either to make coping with the effects easier, or to reduce vulnerability to the effects. For instance, we know that sea levels are rising, and that people in cities near sea level will face increased risk of harm. One way of adapting here might be to build sea walls, which alleviate erosion and flooding in cases of extreme weather events. Another way of adapting could be to simply remove people, buildings, and infrastructure away from the threatened area, and thereby engage in a “managed retreat.” The first way involves coping with the bad effects, since the people remain at risk of harm despite the greater protection. The second way involves reducing vulnerability, since it removes the risk of harm altogether. More generally, adaptation involves directly responding to the (potential or actual) bad effects of climate change, and reducing the risk of associated harms. Other examples include updating old buildings to become more resilient to bad effects, and building water storage systems to avoid shortages.
Solutions of the first three forms are largely low-risk, practicable, and clearly beneficial. Unfortunately, however, they may not be enough for us to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Of course, this is no fault of the solutions themselves – they certainly could ensure we avoid these effects. The problem is instead human self-interest. We are not on track to implement even close to enough of these solutions to ensure we will avoid the worst effects of climate change. As a result, some have suggested adopting a radically different, largely high-risk form of solution: geoengineering. Roughly speaking, these solutions involve the deliberate manipulation of the earth’s climate-related processes. One example is solar radiation management, which involves reflecting additional sunlight back into space. This could be done by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere, for instance, or by placing mirrors in space. Needless to say, while these solutions could have great impact, they remain highly speculative and, if realizable at all, very risky. Introducing such artificial changes to the earth’s atmosphere could irreversibly disrupt its highly complex and interconnected processes, with potentially catastrophic or even existential results. As a result, unlike the first three forms of solution, geoengineering remains morally, practically, and scientifically questionable at best. [25]
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions
[2] Oreskes, N. (2004). “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” Science 306 (5702): 1686.
[4] Jamieson, D. (2014). Reason in a Dark Time. Oxford University Press.
[5] For a list of ten countries especially susceptible to being adversely affected by climate change, see: https://www.rescue.org/article/10-countries-risk-climate-disaster
[6] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/
[7] https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement
[8] https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022
[9] https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-3/
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/faq/faq-chapter-1/
[10] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/
[11] https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/
[12] https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/climate-change/
[13] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
[15] https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/climate-change/#indirect-risks
[16] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/climate-change/#indirect-risks
[17] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf
[18] https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/climate-change/#indirect-risks
[19] Jamieson, D. (2014). Reason in a Dark Time. Oxford University Press. Gardiner, S. M. (2011). A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change. Oxford University Press.
[20] While the acts do not seem to directly harm anyone, it is worth noting that whether they do directly harm anyone remains a live debate in contemporary moral philosophy. See for example:
Broome, J. (2012). Climate Matters. Oxford University Press.
Nefsky, J. (2019). “Collective Harm and the Inefficacy Problem.” Philosophy Compass 14.
Nefsky, J. (2021). “Climate Change and Individual Obligations: A Dilemma for the Expected Utility Approach, and the Need for an Imperfect View.” In M. Budolfson, T. McPherson, and D. Plunkett (eds.), Philosophy and Climate Change, 201-221. Oxford University Press.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2005) “It’s Not My Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations.” In W. Sinnott-Armstrong and R. Howardth (eds.), Perspectives on Climate Change, pp. 221-253. Elsevier.
[21] Gardiner, S. M. (2011). A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change. Oxford University Press.
[22] Ibid.
[23] https://awellfedworld.org/wp-content/uploads/Livestock-Climate-Change-Anhang-Goodland.pdf
[24] Jamieson, D. (2014). Reason in a Dark Time. Oxford University Press.
[25] Nonetheless, there remain considerable methodological controversies regarding the measurement of the negative impacts of climate change. For instance, Dasgupta (2021, 360-361) provides an influential model of differential equations articulating the dynamics of human consumption requisite to maintain a sustainable equilibrium with biodiversity goals, using a discounted aggregate well-being model. Similarly, the United Nations commissioned a report which used an Inclusive Wealth Index model which is a function of three variables - human capital, manufactured capital, and natural capital - as a means of estimating social well-being understood holistically (Inclusive Wealth Report 2018). However, both of these models suffer from a lack of well defined operationalizations necessary to make accurate estimates, despite having their uses. This is especially so when these models allow for equal trade-offs between each of these three variables; this implies that a country which is doing considerable environmental damage, in the sense of deficient natural capital, can compensate for this loss by having sufficiently high human capital or manufactured capital development.
Q1) Perhaps the most important source of global environmental risk, and the one focused on throughout this module, is…
(Correct!) The ongoing changing of the global climate, or climate change, has been primarily caused by human activity, and represents a truly pressing global environmental risk. Rising temperatures will cause an immense amount of suffering, death, and destruction on a global scale. The less we do to prevent climate change, the worse the risks of these bad outcomes will become.
(Incorrect) The correct answer is A. While the threat of nuclear war is certainly a global risk, it is not a risk posed by changes in the global environment. As a result, it is not a “global environmental risk,” as defined in this module.
(Incorrect) The correct answer is A. While the threat of artificial intelligence systems becoming “misaligned” with human values is certainly a global risk, it is not a risk posed by changes in the global environment. As a result, it is not a “global environmental risk,” as defined in this module.
Q2) Which of the following is a major obstacle to properly addressing many global environmental risks?
(Correct!) We reap many benefits from engaging in climate-unfriendly behavior. It allows us to heat and cool our homes, to drive to work, to eat meat, and so on. Fundamentally, it is often in our interest to engage in climate-unfriendly behavior. Since this behavior makes our lives better on a day to day basis, we continue to engage in it.
(Incorrect) The correct answer is A. As we’ve seen, the risks associated with climate change, which is the primary source of current global environmental risks, are very great indeed. We know that rising temperatures will cause an immense amount of suffering, death, and destruction on a global scale. And so, we know that the risks are great enough that they should be addressed.
(Incorrect) The correct answer is A.
Q3) In your opinion, what is the best way of addressing the global environmental risks we face?
Examples here include using reusable bags and bottles, turning off the electricity and water while not in use, choosing environmentally friendly modes of transportation, and even giving up eating meat. This is an admirable cause to participate in!
One way of doing this would be for governments to provide incentives for acting in environmentally friendly ways, such as by incentivizing electric car ownership. Another way would be to introduce new environmentally friendly options, such as plant-based meat substitutes. New inventions or ideas in this space could have huge impacts!
If there were to be national or global agreements on climate policies and goals, such as curbing emissions and ensuring the risks do not become too great, this could have massively beneficial impacts for generations to come. This could incentivize environmentally behavior and lead us to change our everyday behavior for the better.
Return to the Module List